I 




State of New York 

ITneurance department 



REPORT 



LLOYDS AND INTER-INSURERS AS 
CONDUCTED IN NEW YORK 



WITH LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR, TRANSMITTING 
SUCH REPORT 



Dated July 14, 1909 



ALBANY 

J. B. LYON COMPANY, STATE PRINTERS 

1909 



STATE OF NEW YORK 



Unsurance department 



REPORT 



ON 



Lloyds and Inter-Insurers as 
Conducted in New York 



INCLUDING 

Memorandum as to Lloyds, London. 

History of Lloyds in New York. 

The histories and last annual statements of all Lloyds asso- 
ciations and organizations of Inter-Insurers claiming to be 
authorized to do business in the State of New York; and 

Replies from the insurance departments of other states as 
to the business of Lloyds in such states. 

Also, the laws of New York, the opinious of attorneys- 
general, and important cases and documents, having refer- 
ence to Lloyds associations, their legality and the manner 
of conducting their business. 



TRANSMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR, JULY 19, 1909 



ALBANY 
J. B. LYON COMPANY, STATE PRINTERS 






0. OF D. 

J vi 27 mo 




STATE OF NEW YORK 

Unsurance ^Department 

ALBANY, July 19, 1909 



% 

, WIlLIAM H. Hotchkiss 

Superintendent of Insurance 

a 

To the Hox. Chaki.es E. Hl t ghes ; Governor. 

Sir. — Permit me to hand you herewith the report of Special 
Examiner John L. Train, of this department, on Lloyds associa- 
tions and organizations of inter-insurers claiming the right to 
transact business in this state. 

This report is the result of an investigation covering several 
months. It was prepared in order that the public might have the 
facts as to organizations of this character, and also to supply sug- 
gestions for remedial legislation and appropriate applications to 
court. Mr. Train's work considerably enlarges on the scope of the 
Kichards-Sherer investigation in 1895, and that conducted by 
Special Deputy Attorney-General Edgcomb in 1902. It is, too, 
probably the first official compendium on Lloyds insurance as con- 
ducted in this country. 

Supplementing the report, permit me to call attention to the 
following : 

1. In spite of a general impression to the contrary, there are 
several Lloyds associations, as well as organizations of inter-in- 
surers, whose underwriters are reputable and financially respon- 
sible, and whose business is safely and honorably conducted. 

2. The State of New York has, however, been much more tender 
in its treatment of Lloyds than have other states. Here, as was 
recently stated by the present attorney-general, " the law, even 
with section sixty-three, is in a very unsatisfactory form ". 

3. Practically the only restrictions on the business of Lloyds 
associations or partnerships are that they must file annual reports, 
must maintain a premium reserve, must notify the department of 
any changes in the trading name or the underwriters using it, and 
must neither transact their business through branches nor create 
the impression that their policy is of the standard form. Re- 
cently, power was given this department to apply for possession 
and liquidation, in case a Lloyds refused to submit to examina- 
tion or conducted its business in a manner hazardous to its policy- 
holders or the public. 



4 Lloyds Eepokt 

4. If it be a fact — and it undoubtedly is — that the people of 
this state cannot now obtain sufficient fire insurance to meet their 
demands, the Lloyds institution can, perhaps, be so reformed and 
regulated as to make a Llyods policy reliable, no matter by whom 
written. 

5. This can be accomplished, however, only by legislation of an 
emphatic character. Later, I intend to lay before you some spe- 
cific recommendations on this subject. Some of the suggestions 
already made are: That such legislation should (1) put Lloyds 
partnerships under the same restrictions as stock companies, 

(2) prescribe an initial license or certificate to do business, 

(3) require a departmental deposit of securities in considerable 
amount, this as a guarantee against losses due to conflagrations 
or similar causes and to meet the obligations of such underwriters 
as prove financially unable to respond, (4) provide for official and 
periodical examinations, (5) prohibit changes in trading names 
without the consent of the department, (6) require individual 
underwriters to file, at least, annually, verified statements of finan- 
cial worth, (7) interdict the transfer of the license or charter to 
new underwriters without the consent of the department, (8) pro- 
vide that service of process on the attorney-in-fact shall be deemed 
service on each underwriter, (9) limit the kinds of insurance 
which may be written, (10) prescribe a standard Lloyds policy 
form, and (11) give authority to the department to revoke any 
license in case of failure to substitute a responsible underwriter 
for one not deemed sufficiently so, or for non-user, impairment, 
insolvency, or the like. 

6. Meanwhile, it is apparent that proper proceedings should be 
taken either to liquidate, under section sixty-three, or to restrain 
from doing business, under general law, such of the present asso- 
ciations as, under the decisions and rulings cited in the report, 
have no legal right to do business, or have forfeited that right, oi 
bring themselves under section sixty-three. The department has 
already begun proceedings against two of the associations men- 
tioned in the report. The facts as to others will shortly be brought 
to the attention of the attorney-general. 

Yours very respectfully, 

Superintendent 



EEPOKT 

ON 

LLOYDS AND INTEK-INSUKEKS 

as conducted in new york 

Insurance Department, 

New York Office, 165 Broadway, 

New York, July 14, 1909. 

Hon. William H. Hotchkiss, Superintendent of Insurance, 
Albany, N. Y. 

Dear Sir. — In accordance with your instructions to make a 
general investigation of Lloyds associations, both active and dor- 
mant, claiming to be authorized to do the business of insurance in 
the State of New York, I submit the following report, which in- 
cludes : (1) A brief summary of the parent institution, known as 
Lloyds, London; (2) a review of the statutes regulating and of the 
practices, both legal and illegal, of Lloyds institutions and organ- 
izations of inter-insurers in the State of New York; (3) the facts 
as to the organization, history and legality of each of such associa- 
tions claiming to be authorized to do business in New York, and 
(4) certain summaries of the laws of other states affecting these 
associations and the attitude of the various state departments con- 
cerning them. 

Annexed hereto are appendices, containing (a) affidavits of 
Broderick as to the Parson's charters, and of others as to the fake 
or forged charters, (b) important decisions by the courts, (c) copies 
of such sections of the insurance law as apply to these associa- 
tions, and (d) opinions of the attorney-general bearing on this 
general subject. 



Lloyds Report 



LLOYDS., LOXDOX 

Tins famous institution has been called the greatest marine in- 
surance organization the world has ever known. It is not, how- 
ever, a corporation, but, rather, a society of individuals, bound by 
certain rules and regulations, each assuming a portion of a liabil- 
ity represented by a policy contract, underwritten by all who have 
opportunity or choose to join therein. The corporation bearing the 
name, which was chartered by parliament as late as IS 71, while 
authorized to write insurance, is. in reality, but a central govern- 
ing body and chiefly active in the gathering and dissemination of 
marine intelligence. 

As is well known. Lloyds, London, takes its name from Edward 
Lloyd, who kept a coffee house in Tower street, London, late in 
the seventeenth century. Prior to that time, there had been, in 
England, no regular place at which insurance was written, but the 
vessel owners and underwriters who congregated at the coffee 
houses, particularly at Lloyds, then began systematic under- 
writing. Eroni this grew the idea of a regular inter-insurance 
business, the names of the insurers being signed at the bottom of 
an agreement by which they assumed a certain amount of liability 
in case a vessel should be lost. Hence, the word underwriters. 

In 1692, Lloyd's coffee house was removed to Lombard street, 
and, in 1771. the association of Lloyds left the coffee house for 
premises in the Royal Exchange, where it has since remained. 

From its institution until 1720, Lloyds had a practical mon- 
opoly in marine insurance, and greatly prospered. In that year, 
against its vigorous protests, charters were granted by parliament 
to the London Assurance Corporation and the Royal Exchange 
Assurance Corporation ; which companies, in return for large con- 
tributions to the royal treasury, were given the right to do a fire 
and marine insurance business, to the exclusion of all other com- 
panies, thus limiting such classes of insurance to these two com- 
panies and Lloyds, London. But Lloyds was already so well es- 



History of Lloyds, London 7 

tablished that these companies soon abandoned marine risks and 
devoted themselves to the business of fire insurance. The two 
companies continued to enjoy their exclusive charters for more 
than a hundred years. Meanwhile, no other companies being per- 
mitted to write insurance, the power and scope of Lloyds, London, 
thus possessed of a practical monopoly in marine insurance, were 
greatly increased. 

In 1810, Lloyds emerged with credit from a parliamentary in- 
vestigation, but with new rules and regulations, intended to meet 
the disclosures resulting therefrom. Since that time, it has con- 
tinued to thrive, and is now not only the greatest bureau of ship- 
ping news and information in the world, but, also, an institution 
which will insure against practically any human contingency. 
It has representatives in almost every part of the world, and pos- 
sesses a reputation for the faithful performance of contracts of 
more than two centuries' duration. 

At present, the business of Lloyds is done on standard policy 
forms, through syndicates composed of a limited number of indi- 
viduals, represented by one of them as the active underwriter. 
The liability of the persons so represented is individual and not 
joint. Candidates for election as members of Lloyds must be of 
approved financial standing, and, for marine underwriting, as a 
guarantee against business misfortune, are required to deposit, in 
the name of trustees, not less than five thousand pounds. 

It is unnecessary here further to outline the somewhat intricate 
organism of Lloyds, London, which, as an institution of associates, 
seems to show resemblances to the New York Stock Ex- 
change. No review, intended to be introductory to a discussion 
of the American institution, would, however, be complete without 
emphasizing certain basic differences. 

Lloyds, London, strictly, indicates a place where individual in- 
surers do business. In America, the word Lloyds is combined 
with other words into a title which has become, in effect, the trad- 
ing name of an insurance association or partnership. 

Lloyds, London, has a credit and standing which are world 
famous. The same cannot be said of the American institution. 

Lloyds, London, requires proof of the individual responsibility 
of each member, as well as a deposit guaranteeing the perform- 



8 Lloyds Keport 

ance of his contracts. Few American Lloyds show similar safe- 
guards. 

Lloyds. London, besides writing insurance, exercises several im- 
portant public functions. In the nature of things, this is impossi- 
ble for American associations of the same kind. 

Lloyds. London, for upwards of one hundred years, had a prac- 
tical monopoly on marine insurance, and thus acquired the reputa- 
tion which made easy the writing of policies of every kind. Amer- 
ican Lloyds associations entered a field already occupied by many 
long established competitors. 

Lloyds, London, will insure against any conceivable risk. Amer- 
ican Lloyds confine themselves largely to fire and marine insur- 
ance. 

Such scandals as are in the history of Lloyds, London, are very 
much the exception, rather than the rule. Lnfortunately. the 
opposite is the case in the American Lloyds associations. 

On the other hand, the underwriters of Lloyds, London, are not 
represented by an attorney in fact : thus requiring a suit against 
each underwriter in case a liability is contested. In American 
Lloyds, the suit need only be brought against the attorney in fact. 

In the past two or three years, the credit of Lloyds, London, has 
been somewhat shaken and the financial standing of some of its 
syndicates questioned. In comparing it with American Lloyds, 
however, it should not be overlooked that Lloyds, London, is a 
great national institution, without competitors in its own field ; 
whereas none of the American associations has yet become notably 
prominent either in a commercial or a financial sense, 

In this connection, it should be stated that Lloyds. London, does 
not have the right to transact business in the State of Xew York, 
and that brokers and agents, if any, who purport to represent it 
are liable to prosecution for so doing. 



II 

HISTORY OF LLOYDS IN NEW YORK 

The Lloyds association in the United States has been defined 
as a company or association of individuals, organized to do an in- 
surance business on certain stipulations and conditions evidenced 
by a written agreement (19 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 2nd Ed., 
427). 

In New York, it has been stated by the court of last resort that 
the present use of the word Lloyds " has no other signification 
than to designate a partnership or an organized association of indi- 
vidual underwriters " (Imperial Shale Brick Co. v. Jewett, 169 
N. Y. 142). Perhaps a fair definition of Lloyds as it is understood 
in the State of New York is that it is a partnership or association 
of individual underwriters operating under an assumed name, act- 
ing through an individual or individuals to whom has been given 
a power of attorney, the liability of which underwriters, whether 
limited or unlimited, is fixed by articles of association executed 
by them. 

The first Lloyds association having its home office in New York 
was organized in 1866. It was composed of one hundred under- 
writers, operating through an attorney in fact. Each underwriter 
deposited $1,000 with an advisory committee, thus making a 
total initial deposit or safety fund of $100,000. This association 
wrote policies on marine risks exclusvely. Each underwriter as- 
sumed an unlimited liability, the same, however, being several 
and not joint. The financial responsibility of the underwriters 
was passed upon by the advisory committee. Thus, in their be- 
ginnings, Lloyds associations in New York furnished their policy- 
holders with some of the safeguards provided by Lloyds, London. 

Between 1866 and 1892, a considerable number of Lloyds asso- 
ciations entered the field; some of them still exist. Their early 
success, coupled with the fact that they were not amenable to the 
insurance laws or subject to the provisions of the laws applicable 
to stock fire insurance companies, led to the formation of many of 



10 Lloyds Report 

these associations, some of them of very limited financial respon- 
sibility, and few evidencing the safeguards characteristic of the 
Lloyds abroad. 

Legislation of 1892 

Hence, in 1892, when the insurance laws were codified and be- 
came what has since been familiarly called the Insurance Code 
(Chapter 690 of the Laws of 1892), an effort was made to pro- 
hibit the organization of additional Lloyds associations, by pro- 
visions (§ 54) which required persons and partnerships desiring 
to do an insurance business to have the same amount of capital 
and to deposit the same amount of securities in the insurance de- 
partment as was required of stock corporations, and prohibiting 
the further transaction of business by such persons or partnerships 
under corporate or fictitious names. 

Realizing, however, that these provisions would drive out of 
business existing Lloyds associations, several of which were in 
reputable hands and well managed, it was provided, in § 57 of 
the same chapter, that such associations as at the time of the 
passage of this law were lawfully engaged in the business of in- 
surance within the state were exempted from the provisions not 
only of § 54, but, somewhat strangely, of all of the general pro- 
visions of the Insurance Code. Thus, apparently, existing associa- 
tions were given an exclusive franchise and exempted from the 
supervisory power of the insurance department. 

Those familiar with insurance matters were quick to appre- 
ciate the greatly increased value of existing Lloyds charters. They 
were equally quick in discovering that, while the words " at the 
time of the passage of this chapter ", found in § 57, seemed to 
limit the right to organize such associations to the time when such 
chapter was approved by the Governor and thus became law, 
it was also provided at the end of the chapter that the same would 
not become effective until October 1, 1892 ; and that, therefore, 
though it was evidently the intention to prohibit the further or- 
ganization of associations of this kind, those organized between 
the date of the introduction of the bill, in March, 1892, and the 
time when such bill became a law, May 18, 1892, would be legal; 
indeed, that perhaps those organized at any time before October 1, 



History of Lloyds in New York: 11 

1892, as was later held by the attorney-general, wonld escape the 
prohibition of § 54. Hence, between March and October, 1892, 
Lloyds associations were organized almost by the hundred, and to 
this fact is directly traceable mnch of their unsavory reputation 
and the scandals affecting them in recent years. Indeed, that a 
large proportion of Lloyds now doing business in New York were 
organized during this period puts in question the validity of many 
of their charters, as will be later discussed. The methods of some 
of the men who thus sought to circumvent a wise restrictive law 
are sufficiently indicated in the following recital: 

Three individuals — Frederick H. Parson, William H. Brod- 
erick and George W. Holt — met on the afternoon of April 11, 
1892, and organized about thirty of these associations; that is, 
each signed the articles of agreement for associations of different 
names, each of which issued a policy to one of their number. 
These associations were clearly organized, not to write insurance, 
but, to be sold ; and many of these so-called charters were after- 
wards sold. Indeed, a few of such charters are still relied on by 
their owners as virtual licenses to transact an insurance business. 
Annexed to this report, in Appendix A, will be found the affidavit 
of William H. Broderick regarding the organization of these asso- 
ciations, afterwards commonly known as Parson's charters. The 
illegality of these charters was later declared by the Supreme 
Court, in the case of the People v. Loew, reported in 19 Misc. 248, 
and 23 Misc. 574. Under this case, it would seem doubtful 
whether any association possessed of a Parson's charter has the 
right to do insurance business in New York, unless it can show 
that it was actually issuing policies, other than to the original 
associates, on or prior to October 1, 1892. 

The seeming success of those who formed Lloyds associations 
prior to October, 1892, and the apparent value of the license thus 
obtained, emboldened other men, much less scrupulous, to create, 
in 1894 and 1895, articles of association, falsely dated back and 
supported by affidavits purporting to have been made prior to 
October 1, 1892. Some of these men even forged the signatures 
of alleged associates. Thus, was added to the already large num- 
ber of Lloyds associations, apparently vested with exclusive chart- 
ers and not subject to supervision, another group of similar asso- 
ciations; these, unquestionably illegal. They, too, were quickly 



12 Lloyds Report 

put upon the market for sale and, when sold, were used by their 
purchasers for the actual transaction of an insurance business. 
The methods by which these fake charters were created are indi- 
cated in certain affidavits, the originals of which are on file in the 
insurance department, forming part of Appendix A, hereto an- 
nexed. 



The Richards-Sherer Investigation 

The result of these conditions was inevitable. The business of 
individual underwriting by Lloyds associations naturally fell into 
great disrepute in 1894 and 1895. Many associations failed to 
meet their obligations. Hundreds of policyholders were swindled, 
and such Lloyds associations as were honestly and conservatively 
operating found it difficult to do business; indeed, many of them 
reinsured their risks and retired. The insurance department 
was, however, powerless, Lloyds associations having been, by stat- 
ute, exempted both from the general provisions requiring insur- 
ance organizations to file annual reports, and the more salutary 
requirements as to examinations. In an effort, however, to get 
at the facts, preparatory to legal proceedings and remedial legis- 
lation, Eugene Lamb Richards, Esq., an attorney of JSTew York 
City, was, at the suggestion of Superintendent Pierce, appointed 
by Attorney-General Hancock to act with the insurance depart- 
ment, and, not only to investigate Lloyds associations generally, 
but, to bring actions to restrain such associations as were illegally 
organized from the further transaction of business. 

Lender existing law, however, it proved impossible for Mr. Rich- 
ards to get at the books and records of these associations. Hence, 
shortly thereafter, Arthur L. Sherer, Esq., was in 1895 appointed 
by Comptroller Roberts to examine Lloyds associations for the 
purpose of ascertaining whether they were paying the tax on 
premium income required by the tax law of New York. Mr. 
Sherer 's appointment led to some very notable results. He was 
able to get at the books, and, besides finding that such of these as- 
sociations as were actually doing business were liable for con- 
siderable sums in unpaid taxes, brought out the facts as to the so- 
called charters of many of them, and thus placed the attorney- 
general and his deputy, Mr. Richards, in possession of data that 



History of Lloyds in New York 13 

made possible the civil and criminal proceedings shortly there- 
after begun. The civil proceedings resulted in the two import- 
ant opinions of Judge Russell, in the case of the People v. Loew, 
previously referred to, and that of Judge Truax, in the People 
v. Abell. These opinions will be found in Appendix B to this 
report. 

The criminal proceedings resulted in a number of indictments, 
particularly of men who, subsequent to 1892, manufactured the so- 
called fake and forged charters. As a result, many of the illegal 
Lloyds went out of business; with consequent heavy losses, not 
merely to the associates who had paid considerable sums for chart- 
ers, but, also, to a very large number of policyholders having 
claims either for fire losses or for the return of premiums. The 
law of the state, however, continued the same, and only through 
fear or as a matter of favor, could the insurance department 
either supervise or secure information concerning the transaction 
of business by Lloyds associations. 

The Edgcomb Investigation 

In 1902, apparently for the purpose of definitely determining 
what Lloyds associations were entitled to transact business, and 
also to put up the bars on such as were unwilling to place the 
public in possession of needed facts in case claims were contested, 
§ 57 of the insurance law was amended (Chapter 297 of the Laws 
of 1902) by the addition of clauses providing that Lloyds associa- 
tions which, on April 1, 1902, were lawfully engaged or entitled 
to be engaged in the business of insurance, should file with the 
superintendent of insurance, on or before September 1, 1902, a 
copy of their original articles, with amendments, verified by the 
affidavit of one of their members that it was a true copy of such 
articles, stating where its principal office was, the kinds of insur- 
ance business in which it was engaged, and the name under which 
it was doing business. It was also provided in this amendment 
that any association failing to comply therewith should not be per- 
mitted to transact business after September 1, 1902. 

Pursuant to these requirements, thirty-six Lloyds associations 
or organizations of individual underwriters filed copies of their 
articles of association before September 1, 1902, and, later, one 



14 Lloyds Report 

inter-insurance organization which, acting under erroneous ad- 
vice of counsel that it was not a Lloyds association, had failed to 
file in time, was permitted by the superintendent of insurance to 
file its articles, nunc pro tunc as of September 1, 1902. There 
are, therefore, now but thirty-seven Lloyds asociations, by any 
possibility, authorized to do business in this state. 

The papers thus filed made possible the second general investi- 
gation conducted by state authorities. In October, 1902, At- 
torney-General Davies appointed Ernest I. Edgcomb, Esq., an 
attorney of Syracuse, N. Y., as a special deputy attorney-gen- 
eral to act with the insurance department in an investigation of 
the legality of the organization of such associations as had filed 
articles of association, and also to ascertain whether they had 
transacted business continuously since their organization. The 
insurance department engaged Eugene Lamb Richards, Esq., to 
assist Mr. Edgcomb in this investigation. 

The latter investigated the books and records of the various 
Lloyds associations, so far as he was able to gain access thereto, 
and, on December 30, 1902, made his report to the attorney-gen- 
eral. Such report has been drawn on largely in preparing this 
report. Mr. Edgcomb covered each association separately and, 
in the end, divided Lloyds associations and individual underwrit- 
ers into three classes, viz. : Those entitled to transact business ; 
those whose right to transact business was doubtful and uncertain ; 
and those not entitled to transact business. Such classification 
follows : 

Those Entitled to Transact Business 

Commercial Lloyds (now known as New York Commercial 
Underwriters). 

New York and Boston Lloyds (now known as Under- 
writers at New York and Boston Lloyds). 

United States Lloyds (correct title Subscribers at United 
States Lloyds). 

Lloyds of New York City (now known as American Ex- 
change Underwriters). 

Ind ividual Underwriters. 

Merchants Lloyds (correct title Merchants Eire Lloyds). 

New York Reciprocal Underwriters. 



History of Lloyds in New York 15 

American Lloyds (correct title Underwriters at American 
Lloyds). 

Lumber Underwriters at Mutual Lloyds (now known as 
Lumber Underwriters). 

New York Fire Lloyds. 

Isthmus Lloyds of the City of New York. 

Indemnity Exchange (correct title The Indemnity Ex- 
change). 

Manufacturers Lloyds. 

Those ^Yhose Right to Transact Business ivas Doubtful and Un- 
certain 

Fidelity Insurance Association. 

New York and Chicago Lloyds (now known as Allied 
Underwriters at New York and Chicago Lloyds). 

Associated Underwriters at South and North American 
Lloyds (now known as Union Underwriters of New York). 

Underwriters at Electric City Lloyds (now known as Mer- 
cantile Lloyds of New York City). 

New York Central Fire Lloyds (correct title New York 
Central Lloyds) and two branches thereof called: 

1. The Brewers and Malsters Underwriters at New York 
Central Lloyds of Syracuse, N. Y. 

2. The Syracuse Mutual Insurance Underwriters at New 
York Central Lloyds of Syracuse, N. Y. 

Those Not Entitled to Transact Business 

Imperial Fire Lloyds. 

Jefferson Fire Lloyds (now known as Lloyds, New York). 

United Underwriters of the City of New York. 

German American Fire and Marine Lloyds. 

Great Western Lloyds (correct title Underwriters at Great 
Western Lloyds). 

New York and New England Underwriters at Lloyds. 

Inter-Insurers of America. 

International Fire Office. 

Assurance Lloyds of America. 

Insurers Alliance of New York (now known as New York 
Insurance Association). 



16 Lloyds Kepoet 

Fire Association of New York (now known as Union 
Underwriters). 

Standard Eire Lloyds of A T ew York City. 

Equitable Eire Lloyds (now known as National Underwrit- 
ers of America). 

The Edgcomb report does not include in its classification the 
Garfield Assurance Eire Lloyds or the North American Inter- 
Insurers of the City of New York. 

Legislation of 1903, 1905 and 1909 
The Edgcomb report seems never to have been printed. It 
has, however, been of much value in such proceedings as have 
been brought to terminate the so-called licenses of some of the 
associations. This report doubtless also led to the legislation of 
1903, and, indirectly, to that of 1905. In the first of these years, 
there, were added to § 57 of the insurance law (Chapter 171 of 
the Laws of 1903) provisions requiring Lloyds associations to 
file annual statements with the insurance department in such 
form and to contain such matter as the superintendent of insur- 
ance should prescribe; and, in the same year § 121 of the insur- 
ance law was amended (Chapter 106 of the Laws of 1903) so as 
to prohibit these associations from issuing fire insurance policies 
which might in any way tend to convey the impression that such 
policies were the standard form of policy required for use by stock 
fire corporations. The first of such amendments made possible, at 
last, some slight supervision of Lloyds associations by the insur- 
ance department of the State of New York. 

In 1905, three sections were added to the insurance law, which 
are now §§ 142, 143 and 162 (Chapter 566 of the Laws of 1905). 
These sections provide, in substance, first, that Lloyds associations 
shall thereafter maintain a reserve fund equal to the total un- 
earned premiums on policies in force; second, that, in case such 
reserve fund shall become impaired, the same must be made good 
within ninety days after requisition by the superintendent of 
insurance ; third, that a Lloyds association shall not change its 
trading name without first filing with the superintendent a writ- 
ten notice of intention so to do; fourth, that a Lloyds association 
shall not thereafter establish branches ; fifth, that every change in 



History of Lloyds in New York 17 

the subscribing underwriters or attorneys of such associations shall 
be reported to the superintendent within twenty days after the 
same is made ; sixth, that failure to comply with any of the above 
provisions, or the making of any false or fraudulent statement in 
an annual report shall make such association liable to an injunc- 
tion restraining it from the further transaction of business ; and, 
seventh, that any person, partnership, corporation or association, 
acting as agent or attorney in fact for any Lloyds association, 
violating any of the above provisions, or acting as agent for any 
Lloyds association not authorized to transact business, shall be 
guilty of a misdemeanor. The change accomplished by § 162 is 
immaterial to this report. 

In 1909, these restrictive provisions were supplemented by what 
is now known as § 63 of the insurance law (Chapter 300 of the 
Laws of 1909), whereby a new remedy was provided against such 
of these associations as should either be insolvent or refuse to sub- 
mit their books, papers or affairs to inspection by the department, 
or be in such a condition that the further transaction of business 
would be hazardous to their policyholders or the public. This 
last amendment has been construed by the present attorney-gen- 
eral, and seems to bring these associations, at last, within the con- 
trol of the insurance department. 

In Appendix C, annexed to this report, will be found copies of 
those provisions of the insurance law directly applicable to 
Lloyds associations and the 'business which may be transacted by 
them. 

A Homey- General's Opinions 

From time to time, the insurance department has called upon 
the attorney-general for interpretations of the law affecting 
Lloyds associations. The opinions given constitute Appendix D, 
annexed to this report. Such opinions may be summarized as 
follows : 

June 1, 1893, Attorney-General Rosendale held, in substance, 
that any Lloyds association lawfully transacting business on Oc- 
tober 1, 1892, could continue to transact business. This ruling 
was subsequently ratified by an amendment to § 57, accomplished 
by chapter 607 of the Laws of 1894. 



IS Lloyds Report 

February 21, 1894, Attorney-General Hancock held that the 
words "engaged in business'' in § 57 meant actually engaged in 
business, with policies outstanding and contingent liabilities as- 
sumed ; but that such words were not intended to include associa- 
tions which had theretofore issued policies but which; at the time 
of the enactment of the law, were not actively engaged in business 
or did not have policies or liabilities outstanding at such time. 

March 29, 1895, Attorney-General Hancock held that the cor- 
poration counsel of Xew York, and not the attorney-general of 
the state, should collect any penealties due from such associations 
to the fire department of the City of Xew York. 

September 2, 1899, Attorney-General Davies held, in substance, 
that a Lloyds association could, after October 1, 1892, write only 
the particular kind of insurance written by it prior to that date. 

December 6, 1899, Attorney-General Davies held: first, That 
the superintendent of insurance had no power under § 34 of the 
insurance law to demand or enforce payment from a Llyods 
association of a tax of two per centum on the amount of its prem- 
ium receipts ; and, second, that the superintendent of insurance 
had no authority, on his own motion, to examine the books and 
records of these associations to ascertain the amount of premiums 
collected. 

March 22, 1901, Attorney-General Davies, in considering the 
right of the Columbia Fire Lloyds to do business, held that, inas- 
much as the articles of association, by their terms, continued in 
force but five years after September 30, 1892, and were not then 
renewed, the right of this Lloyds to do business had terminated. 

January 28, 1903, Attorney-General Cunneen held that such 
Lloyds associations as suspended business at any time after Oc- 
tober 1, 1892, or had not continued to actually and in good faith 
conduct business, or which, for the mere purpose of continuing 
or attempting to continue to retain the rights which they pre- 
viously had under § 57, issued policies to members or employees 
and renewed the same, lost whatever rights they had under § 57 
as it existed prior to its amendment in 1902, and that, having lost 
these rights, they could not be again revived. Hence, that such 
associations cannot be said to have been lawfully engaged in the 



Histoey of Lloyds in New York 19 

business of insurance on the 1st day of April, 1902, and are, there- 
fore, liable to a suit restraining them from conducting such busi- 
ness. 

February 25, 1903, Attorney-General Cunneen held that a 
Lloyds association of another state could not do business in this 
state. 

March 28, 1904, Attorney-General Cunneen held that a single 
individual could not become a Lloyds association. 

October 7, 1904, Attorney-General Cunneen held that a Lloyds 
association could not be formed by fire insurance corporations not 
admitted to do the business of fire insurance in this state. 

October 17, 1904, Attorney-General Cunneen again expressed 
the view that a Lloyds association of another state could not be 
admitted to do business in this state. 

December 6, 1905, Attorney-General Mayer held that the provi- 
sions of § 142, added to the insurance law by chapter 566 of the 
Laws of 1905, affected only policies issued by Lloyds associations 
on or after the day when such law took effect, viz. : May 19, 1905. 

April 27, 1908, Attorney-General Jackson held that associations 
of inter-insurers were amenable to the Lloyds sections of the in- 
surance law and under the supervision of the insurance depart- 
ment. 

June 15, 1909, Attorney-General O'Malley held: (1) As to the 
power of the superintendent of insurance to examine into the 
condition and affairs not only of Lloyds associations but also of 
inter-insurers, both that there was now ample authority in the 
Lloyds sections of the insurance law, and, further, that, since the 
addition of § 63, the failure of such an association to permit such 
an examination entitled the superintendent to apply for possession 
of its property and to conduct its business. 

(2) That associations of inter-insurers are liable to taxation on 
their premium income, under § 187 of the Tax Law. 

* :f ( 3) That, while the suspension by a corporation of its ordinary 
and legal business for at least one year may lead to an action for 
the dissolution of its charter, he is unable to find any authority 

* The opinion of Attorney-General Cunneen, dated January 28. 1903, not having- been 
considered by Attorney-General O'Malley at the time of this ruling-, such opinion was 
submitted to him after the above matter was in type; with the result that, on July 21, 
1909, he supplemented his opinion with a further opinion, taking- a view opposite to that 
of Attorney-General Cunneen. (See copy of opinion of July 21, 1909, in Appendix D."> 



20 Lloyds Report 

holding that the mere nonnser of a so-called charter or the right 
to do business of a Lloyds association will work a forfeiture of 
such right. 

(4) That there is no prohibition in the law on the sale by indi- 
vidual underwriters of their interest in a Lloyds association to 
other individuals ; and, hence, that the so-called charter of such an 
association may be transferred from one set of individuals to 
another, through the medium of a change in membership. 

(5) That the failure of such an association to file its annual 
report does not forfeit its right to transact business, though such 
failure would probably amount to a misdemeanor on the part of 
the officer charged with the duty of making such report ; and that, 
also, under § 63, the superintendent would probably have power 
to apply to court for possession, in case such an officer had wil- 
fully thus violated the section of the insurance law requiring 
the filing of annual reports. 

(6) That the superintendent has no power to refuse to permit 
a Lloyds association to change its name, unless the proposed name 
is so similar to the name of other associations or corporations as to 
be calculated to deceive. 

(7) That Lloyds associations are required to keep records show- 
ing the manner in which their business is conducted and from 
which a verification of their annual statements may be made. 

(8) That the superintendent of insurance is not required by 
law to print in his annual reports the statements or reports made 
by Lloyds associations. 

(9) That the liabilities of a Lloyds association under former 
underwriters passes to its new members and should be carried in 
every financial statement until they are satisfied. 

(10) That there is nothing in the insurance law requiring that 
the unearned premium reserve of Lloyds associations be calculated 
on the same basis as that required of a fire insurance corporation. 

(11) By implication, that the superintendent of insurance has 
authority to compel a Lloyds association to make a verified state- 
ment of its condition at any time he may desire ; also that, under 
§ 68, the superintendent may move for the possession of any such 
association refusing to be examined under oath touching its affairs. 



History of Lloyds in New York 21 

In conclusion, the present attorney-general states that, in his 
opinion, " The law, even with § 63, is in a very unsatisfactory 
form in so far as the procedure to be followed by the superinten- 
dent in supervising these Lloyds associations is concerned. The 
remedy furnished by § 63 is in many cases drastic and cumber- 
some and out of all proportion to the relief sought, and the fore- 
going opinion represents merely my best judgment as to the most 
practicable means of supervising these associations under the ex- 
isting conditions." 

Statutes 

The following is a summary of the statutes which have been 
passed since the adoption of the Insurance Code (Chapter 690 of 
the Laws of 1892) and which should be considered in connection 
with any remedial legislation: 

Chapter 684 of the Laws of 1891, amends § 57, by inserting 
the words : " the first day of October, eighteen hundred and ninety- 
two " for the words : " at the time' this chapter took effect ". 

Chapter 297 of the Laws of 1902 amends § 57 by requiring the 
filing in the insurance department of articles of association, be- 
fore September 1, 1902,, and prohibiting the further transaction of 
business by Lloyds associations unless such articles are so filed. 

Chapter 106 of the Laws of 1903 amends § 121 by inserting a 
prohibition on the use by Lloyds of fire insurance policies intended 
to convey the impression that they are the standard form pre- 
scribed by the insurance law for the use of fire insurance corpo- 
rations. 

Chapter 471 of the Laws of 1903 amends § 57 by requiring the 
filing with the superintendent of insurance of an annual state- 
ment on a form prescribed by such superintendent. 

Chapter 566 of the Laws of 1905 adds present §§ 142, 143 and 
162 to the insurance law. 

Chapter 300 of the Laws of 1909 adds § 63 to the insurance 
law, giving power to the superintendent of insurance to apply 
for possession and to conduct business, in case a Lloyds association 
refuses to submit to examination or is conducting its business in 
a way hazardous to its policyholders or the public. 

Under Attorney-General O'Malley's opinion, § 187 of the Tax 
Law is also applicable to these associations. 



22 Lloyds Report 

References of Lloyds to the Attorney- General 

At the times specified, the insurance department has brought to 
the attention of the attorney-general, for action by that official, 
the following Lloyds associations : 

Imperial Fire Lloyds, January 9, 1903. 

Jefferson Fire Lloyds (now Lloyds, New York), January 
9, 1903; April 8, 1908. 

United Underwriters of the City of New York, January 9, 
190i3. 

German American & Marine Underwriters of New York, 
January 9, 1903. 

Great Western Lloyds, January 9, 1903. 

New York & New England Underwriters at Lloyds of 
New York City, January 9, 1903; June 7, 1909. 

Inter-Insurers of America, January 9, 1903 ; October 16, 
1905; June 7, 1907. 

International Fire Office of New York City, January 9, 
1903; April 8, 1908. 

Assurance Lloyds of America, January 9, 1903. 

Insurers Alliance of the City of New York (now New 
York Insurance Association), January 9, 1903; November 
17, 1903; April 8, 1908; November 27, 1908. 

Fire Association of New York (now Union Underwriters), 
January 9, 1903; February 17, 1904. 

Standard Fire Lloyds of New York City, January 9 1903. 

Equitable Fire Lloyds (now National Underwriters of 
America), January 9, 1903. 

New York Central Lloyds, with its branches, The Brewers 
& Maltsters Underwriters at New York Central Lloyds; 
and Syracuse Mutual Fire Insurance Underwriters at New 
York Central Lloyds; January 9, 1903; April 8, 1908. 

Fidelity Insurance Association, January 9, 1903. 

New York & Chicago Lloyds (now Allied Underwriters 
at New York & Chicago Lloyds), January 9, 1903. 

Associated Underwriters at South and North American 
Lloyds (now Union Underwriters of New York), January 9, 
1903. 



History of Lloyds in New York 23 

Underwriters at Electric City Lloyds (now Mercantile 
Lloyds of New York city), January 9, 1903. 

North American Inter-Insurers of New York City (for 
failure to file articles before September 1, 1902), November 
19, 1902. 

The Indemnity Exchange of Chicago, February 10, 1903. 

Union Eire & Marine Underwriters, February 17, 1904. 

Mercantile Lloyds of New York City, April 14, 1908. 

Garfield Assurance Eire Lloyds, December 2, 1908. 

Isthmus Lloyds of the City of New York, January 20, 
1909. 
On March 27, 1903, Attorney-General Cunneen notified the 
department that he had already begun actions against the United 
Undewriters of the City of New York and the Standard Lloyds, 
to restrain such associations from the further transaction of busi- 
ness, and that, in his opinion, it was proper to begin actions 
against the following, for a similar purpose : 

Imperial Fire Lloyds of New York. 

Jefferson Fire Lloyds (now Lloyds, New York). 

German American Fire & Marine Lloyds. 

Great Western Lloyds. 

New York & New England Underwriters at Lloyds of New 
York City. 

Inter-Insurers of America. 

International Eire Office of New York City. 

Assurance Lloyds of America. 

Insurers Alliance of the City of New York (now New 
York Insurance Association). 

Fire Association of New York (now Union Under- 
writers). 

Equitable Fire Lloyds (now National Underwriters of 
America). 

Fidelity Insurance Association. 

New York & Chicago Lloyds (now Allied Underwriters at 
New York & Chicago Lloyds). 

Associated Underwriters at South & North American 
Lloyds (now Union Underwriters of New York). 

Underwriters at Electric City Lloyds (now Mercantile 
Lloyds of New York City). 



24 Lloyds Repokt 

^New York Central Lloyds and its branches, The Brewers 
& Maltsters Underwriters at Xew York Central Lloyds ; and 
The Syracuse Mutual Lire Insurance Underwriters at Xew 
York 'Central Lloyds. 
The proceedings taken pursuant to the department's letters to 
the attorney-general are, so far as possible, indicated in the in- 
dividual histories given later in this report. 

Kinds of Insurance Written by Lloyds 

While Lloyds associations originally wrote marine insurance 
only, but one of them now confines its business to that field. One 
or two others write both fire and marine insurance. The others, 
apparently, do a fire insurance business only. 

In this connection, it should be noted that the attorney-general 
has held that Lloyds associations and organizations of. inter- 
insurers can write only such kinds of business as they were actually 
writing on the 1st day of October, 1892. 

Inter-Insurers 

Ever since the law limiting Lloyds organizations was passed, 
in 1892, the attorneys in fact and counsel for associations of inter- 
insurers have insisted that inter-insurers, per se, were not within 
the terms of § 57 or any other section of the insurance law; in- 
deed, that any law which sought to restrict or interfere with their 
method of doing business was unconstitutional. 

In 1908, Attorney-General Jackson held to the contrarv of this 
view, and Attorney-General O'Malley has concurred in such 
opinion. Hence, associations which are doing an inter-insurance 
business, whether under a so-called Lloyds charter or not, are, so 
far as the facts were available — the right to examine and ascer- 
tain them having been refused in one or two instances — included 
in the individual histories given later in this report. 

In associations of inter-insurers each policyholder is an under- 
writer on every other policy. Thus, the attorney in fact is the 
agent both of the insured and of the insurer. The liability as- 
sumed by each underwriter or policyholder is expressed in the 
agreement or power of attorney signed by him. Some of the 



History of Lloyds in New York 25 

underwriters assume an unlimited liability at all times; others 
assume an unlimited liability except in cases of conflagrations; 
still others assume a limited liability. 

All the inter-insurers associations now operating in this state 
and reporting to the insurance department, transact business under 
what might be called a group system. For instance, a policyholder 
may be in the $500, $1,000, $1,500 oi $2,000 group. By this is 
meant that the policyholder will for all policies assume a maxi- 
mum liability on any single risk of one of the amounts just men- 
tioned, i. e., according to the group of which he is a member. 
Thus, if the policyholder is in the $2,000 group and there are two 
hundred inter-insurers, he will assume possibly an aggregate lia- 
bility of $398,000; but this would only be so providing all the 
others were in the $2,000 group. More, the provisions of inter- 
insurer agreements are reciprocal, viz. : " B ", an insurer, agrees 
to assume exactly the same amount of risk on "A's " policy that 
"A", under his agreement, will assume on " B's " risk. Hence, if 
"A" is in the $1,000 and " B " is in the $2,000 class, " B " will 
assume only $1,000 on "A's " risk. It seems almost the universal 
rule that each inter-insurer pays the regular board rate on his 
policy, such rate being based on the character of the risk assumed. 
The account of each individual is kept separately, and the profits, 
if any, are divided annually. 

Some of the inter-insurer associations require a deposit from the 
policyholders of an amount equal to the maximum risk he will 
assume on any one policy. In others, no deposit is required ; while 
in one of them, a personal bond must be given for five times the 
largest amount assumed on any one risk. Each association of 
inter-insurers has its own inspection system; and, in most cases, 
an inspection is made of each risk twice a year. It is claimed that 
by this careful scrutiny of risks and the financial responsibility 
and generally high character of each policyholder, the moral hazard 
to which stock companies are subjected is almost entirely elim- 
inated. 

As to losses, the agreement of each underwriter provides that, 
in case the losses exceed the amount subscribed, deposited or paid 
in by him, he shall immediately make good that amount when 
called upon so to do by his attorney. 



26 Lloyds Report 

Further facts as to these inter-insurer associations^will be found 
in the individual histories hereinafter given. 



In conclusion, it should, perhaps, be stated that, while the his- 
tory of the so-called Lloyds institution in the State of New York 
is neither creditable to such institution nor to the state, there are 
a number of Lloyds associations which are honestly and properly 
conducted. This fact should not be lost sight of by anyone reading 
this report. 



Ill 

INDIVIDUAL HISTOEIES AND PEESENT FINANCIAL 

CONDITIONS OF LLOYDS ASSOCIATIONS AND 

OEGANIZATIONS OF INTEE-INSUEEES 

Twenty-seven Lloyds associations and organizations of inter- 
insurers filed annual statements with the insurance department 
for the year ending December 31, 1908. As to each of these an 
individual report, based, not merely upon the facts brought out 
by the Edgcomb report, but, also, where permitted, on a personal 
examination of books and records, as well as such data as could be 
found in the state departments, is appended hereto. In addition, 
a report is made on the Fidelity Insurance Association, which has 
never filed a yearly statement, but which seems to be making 
efforts to sell its so-called charter. Such histories and statements 
are alphabetically arranged, in groups, the first consisting of the 
twenty-two Lloyds associations proper, the second of three associa- 
tions of inter-insurers transacting business under Lloyds " chart- 
ers ", and the third of three associations of inter-insurers proper. 

LLOYDS PROPER 

The following twenty-two histories and statements are of Lloyds, 
proper. 



28 Lloyds Report 



ASSURANCE LLOYDS OF AMERICA 

Home OflLe, 156 Broadway, New York 
Attornev-in-faet, Frank M. Parker 



Date of organization February 15, 1892. 

Original underwriters D. R. Schenck, H. B. Beecher, W. E. 

Midgley, H. Ward Beecher, J. W. 
Taylor, W. C. Beecher. 

Original attorneys-in-fact American Fire Insurance Lloyds, from 

Changes in name, sales of charter, etc . . Beecher, Schenck & Company. 

February 15, 1892, to December 19, 
1892. 
Asurrance Llovds of America, from 

December 19, 1892, to date. 
Charter sold December 18, 1893, and 
September, 1902. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department August 20, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Xot entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . . Referred to attorney-general, Janu- 
ary 9, 1903. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income. 1908 $6.00. 

Amount of insurance in force December 

31, 1908 $3,000. 

The original underwriters decided to increase the number of 
underwriters to one hundred, and on December 19, 1892, this num- 
ber of underwriters were elected to membership. At this meeting 
the name of the association was changed to "Assurance Lloyds of 
America ". Each underwriter was required to make an initial 
deposit of $5,000 and to assume a liability of $10,000 in addition 
to this deposit. An active fire insurance business was transacted 
from the date of organization. 

At a meeting held on December 18, 1893, Beecher, Schenck & 
Co., resigned as attorney-in-fact and R. C, Rathbone & Co., elected. 
The association transacted a considerable volume of business 
until 1897, when all its outstanding policies were reinsured in 
the Insurance Company of America, most of the stockholders of 
this company being former underwriters of the Assurance Lloyds 
of America. 



Assurance Lloyds of America 29 

INo policies were issued by this association from 1897 to 1902. 
The minute book does not show any meetings held between Jan- 
uary 20, 1899 and July 16, 1902. The records show that the only 
business transacted during that period was the collection of some 
old premiums, the payment of a few losses, the cashing of certain 
assets and the payment of dividends. 

On July 16, 1902, a meeting of the advisory committee of the 
association was held and it was decided to sell the so-called char- 
ter, or right to do business, to Frank M. Parker. 

In September, 1902, Frank M. Parker was elected attorney- 
in-fact together with an entirely new set of underwriters. An 
active business was carried on by these underwriters from this 
date until October 1, 1904, when the outstanding policies were 
reinsured. 

Under date of May 21, 1903, the following letter was issued by 
the insurance department. 

Mr. Frank M. Parker, Assurance Lloyds of America, 38 
William street, New York city. 
Dear Sir. — Upon investigation and a hearing of the facts con- 
nected with the organization of the Assurance Lloyds of America, 
this department, in conjunction with the Attorney-General's office, 
has arrived at the conclusion that the predecessors of the present 
underwriters of the Assurance Lloyds of America, were legally 
engaged in the business of insurance on the 1st day of October, 
1892, and that nothing has transpired since that time that has 
deprived their successors, who are now the underwriters of the 
Assurance Lloyds of America, of the franchise or right to transact 
insurance business. 

Yours truly, 

Francis Hendricks, 

Superintendent 

Since October, 1904, this association has written but two or 
three policies a year, for the purpose, as stated by the secretary, of 
keeping the so-called charter in force. Since this date the asso- 
ciation has been paying old losses incurred on policies issued 
during 1903 and 1904. In May, 1908, Mr. Hill, the secretary, 
informed your examiner that the right of this association to trans- 
act business was for sale. On May 21, 1909, Mr. Hill reiterated 
this statement. 



30 Lloyds Repokt 

A requisition dated April 7, 1908, was served upon the attor- 
ney of this association, to make good an impairment of $3,807.10, 
as shown by the annual statement of this association for the year 
ending December 31, 1907. An affidavit made by Charles E. Hill, 
the secretary, dated July 20, 1908, stated that the sum of $3,8-50 
had been paid into the association by its underwriters, to make 
good this impairment. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this association, 
each assuming a maximum liability of $5,000, are as follows: 

Name. Address. 

Victer A. Harder 128 White street, New York. 

P. J. Carlin 1 Madison avenue, New York. 

Charles H. Simmons 110 Centre street, New York. 

VV. H. Loomis Williamsport, Pa. 

Charles T. Dotter 30 Barclay street, New York. 

Thomas Nelson, Jr New Brunswick, N. J. 

Charles E. Hill 90 West street, New York. 

Frank M. Parker 156 Broadway, New York. 

Augustine Banks 52 Broadway, New York. 

J. Ross Valentine Woodbridge, N. J. 

Edward G. Benedict 76 Wall street, New York. 

John J. Roberts 225 Fifth avenue, New York. 

Gilbert C. Brown 1123 Broadway, New York. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the insur- 
ance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 



ASSETS 
Cash in office and in bank 


$662 77 


LIABILITIES 


$1, 000 00 




3 00 






Total liabilities 


$1,003 00 







Fidelity Insurance Association 31 



FIDELITY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION 

Home Office and attorney-in-fact unknown 



Date of organization This association is a consolidation of 

Mercantile Lloyds, organized in 
April, 1892, and the Guarantee and 
Accident Lloyds, organized in No- 
vember, 1890. 

Original underwriters Mercantile Lloyds: J. W. Durbrow, 

J. W. Barbour, Donald F. Ayers, 
William Durbrow, George Bawden. 
Guarantee and Accident Lloyds: One 
hundred underwriters. 

Original attorneys-in-fact Mercantile Lloyds : J. W. Durbrow, 

J. W. Barbour. 
Guarantee and Accident Lloyds: A. 
R. Eathbone, F. W. Satterlee, C. D. 
Fisher, John G. Dorrance. 
Business prior to October 1, 1892.... Unknown; records not available. 
Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. Mercantile Lloyds, from April, 1892, 

to April 10, 1901. 
Guarantee and Accident Lloyds, from 
November, 1890, to April 10, 1901. 
Fidelity Insurance Association, from 
April 10, 1901, to date. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

department August 29, 1902. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any . . Referred to attorney-general January 

9, 1903. Unsatisfied judgments, 
v however, to the amount of $9,734. 

Edgcomb classification Legality doubtful and uncertain. 

Present underwriters Unknown. 

Kind of insurance written Probably fire. 

Premium income, 1908 Probably nothing. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 Probably nothing. 

Mr. Edgcomb in his report states that, from the time of 
organization until June 27, 1893, there is no record of any meet- 
ing. This association seems to have transacted considerable 
business up to 1897, when it was merged with the Guarantee and 
Accident Lloyds. 

The Guarantee and Accident Lloyds was organized in Novem- 
ber, 1890, with one hundred underwriters. This association 
seems to have actively transacted business until 1897, when it was 



32 Lloyds Repokt 

merged with the Mercantile Lloyds. From 1898 to 1902, about 
thirteen policies each year were written. 

On April 10, 1901, the name of the association was changed 
to Fidelity Insurance Association. 

On February 9, 1902, the Fidelity Surety Company was 
appointed attorney-in-fact and an active business commenced which 
continued until 1903. In this year the business seems to have 
ceased, and this association has never filed an annual report with 
the insurance department as required by section 57 of the in- 
surance law. There are judgments outstanding against this 
association to the amount of $9,734. 

It has been brought to the attention of your examiner that the 
so-called charter has been offered for sale to various insurance 
brokers in New York city, in the past three or four years. 



Garfield Assurance Fire Lloyds 



GAKFIELD ASSURANCE FIKE LLOYDS 

Home Office, 56 Pine Street, New York 
Attorney-in-fact, Charles F. Mitchell 



Date of organization November 10, 1891. 

Original underwriters Samuel Ellenbogen, Samuel Milch and 

Moses B. Fertig. 

Original attorney-in-fact Samuel Milch. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. One fire insurance policy issued for a 

term of three years. 

Sales of charter, etc Sold by Samuel Milch in 1899 for 

$150. Charter sold in December, 
1906, to Charles F. Mitchell. 
Articles of association, when filed 

with department September 2, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Articles of association mislaid and or- 
ganization not examined. 
• Referred to attorney-general, Decem- 
ber 2, 1908. 
References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any... Referred to attorney-general, Decem- 
ber 2, 1908. Requisition served on 
attorney to make good impairment 
of $9,746.90 before July 28, 1909. 
On July 1, 1909, application made 
to the superintendent of insurance, 
the attorney-general representing 
him, to liquidate this association 
under section 63 of the insurance 
law. 

Underwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income, 1908 $13,687.91. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $1,158,332. 

Charles F. Mitchell, the attorney-in-fact, informed your ex- 
aminer that no books or records of any description, prior to Jan- 
uary 1, 1907, were in his possession excepting a minute book con- 
taining the original articles of agreement above referred to. This 
minute book shows a policy of fire insurance issued on March 9, 
1892 to James Boylan in the sum of $1,000, for a term of three 
years, and that no further policy of insurance was issued until 
March 1, 1895. Your examiner has been informed by Mr. S. J. 
Eosenblum, an attorney of 132 Nassau street, New York city, 
who was counsel for M. B. Greenberg, a former attorney-in-fact 



34 Lloyds Report 

for this association and a clerk in his office, and also former coun- 
sel for the present attorney-in-fact, that he purchased the right 
to do business of this association for a client about 1899, from 
Samuel Milch residing at ISTo. 71 East 123rd street, New York 
city, for about $150, and that about the middle of December, 
1906, he sold for his client the right of this association to do 
business to Charles F. Mitchell. Mr. Rosenblum also stated that 
in his opinion this association was not legally organized, but 
refused to state the basis of his opinion. 

The minute book of the association shows the following: 
At a meeting held December 31, 1891, the following were 
admitted as underwriters: Edward Adler, Joseph Fertig, K. 
Gross and Abraham Wiener. The receipts from date of organiza- 
tion to December 20, 1892, were $86.75. Meetings were held 
December 19, 1893, December 18, 1894, December 17, 1895, 
December 15, 1896, March 16, 1897, December 24, 1897, Decem- 
ber 20, 1898, December 19, 1899 and December IS, 1900. In 
December 1901, Samuel Milch resigned as attorney and was suc- 
ceeded by Moses B. Eertig. In December, 1903, M. B. Green- 
berg was elected attorney in place of M. B. Fertig. On June 15, 
1904, these underwriters were elected: B. Greenstein, John J. 
Menching, George H. Pings, S. Tamowsky, S. S. Hefter, Max 
Posner, S. Krieger, Herman Krieger and M. Berlinger. The 
following resigned : Messrs. Ellenbogen, Milch, Fertig, Harry 
A. Abraham and Wallman. At the same meeting Sol Urbach 
was elected attorney in place of M. B. Greenberg. On Decem- 
ber 19, 1905, Mr. Urbach resigned as attorney and was succeeded 
by M. B. Greenberg. At a meeting held December 18, 1906, 
the following resolution was adopted : " On motion it was de- 
cided to sell the franchise rights of the Garfield Assurance Fire 
Lloyds to Charles F. Mitchell, Esq., who expressed his willingness 
to purchase same." The following underwriters were admitted: 
" Charles F. Mitchell, L. B. Koch and Alfred Stanley." 

At a meeting held on January 11, 1907, the proposed sale 
was approved and it was resolved that the following agreement 
be entered into: 

" That the Garfield is to be sold for the sum of fifteen hundred 
dollars ($1,500), and in addition thereto, whatever the cost will 



Garfield xIssurance Fire Lloyds 35 

be to the Garfield, to dispose entirely of the Ferzan case (Atlantic 
City Frie), which case was settled recently, and the bills of the 
attorneys and counsel who tried the case, as well as the bill for 
disbursements have not been paid yet. 

That Mr. Mitchell is to pay by promissory notes one hundred 
dollars ($100) each and every month. 

That the franchise is to be transferred to Mr. Mitchell, guran- 
teed to be free from any and all liabilities, the present outstand- 
ing policy or policies, now in force to be cancelled, and return 
premium thereon, to be paid by the Garfield." 

At the same meeting the following resigned as underwriters: 
William Horowitz, John J. Mensching, Morris B. Greenberg and 
Harry A. Abrahams. Also, Charles F. Mitchell was elected 
attorney-in-fact to take effect January 31, 1907. At a meeting 
held on February 8, 1907, the following were elected under- 
writers : Charles F. McManus, L. B. Koch and Alonzo Cleaver. 
On January 21, 1908, these underwriters were added : Edward 
A. Kates, J. W. Weber, J. Edward Strauss, Louis J. Weiss, 
H. A. Fingerhut and Arthur J. Blumenthal. 

An examination of this association made under date of April 
14, 1908, showed an impairment of $9,278.10. A requisition 
dated June 3, 1908, was served on the attorney of this associa- 
tion to make good this impairment on or before September 3, 
1908. An examination made as of September 15, 1908, showed 
an impairment of $3,082.06. A report on examination -dated 
April 6, 1909, shows an impairment as of December 31, 1908, of 
$7,034.32 and an impairment as of March 15, 1909, of $9,746.90. 
A requisition under date of April 27, 1909, was served on Charles 
F. Mitchell, the attorney, on April 29, 1909, to make good this 
impairment on or before July 28, 1909. A large number of com- 
plaints have been received by this department regarding the pay- 
ment of losses by this association. From investigations made by 
examiners of this department it is apparent that this association 
does not pay its losses promptly, even after the loss has been 
adjusted and rafts for the same have been issued. 

On July 1, 1909, an application was made by the superinten- 
dent of insurance, he attorney-general representing him. to 
liquidate this association under section 63 of the insurance law 7 . 



36 Lloyds Report 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this associa- 
tion, each assuming a maximum liability of $2,500, are as follows : 

Name Address 

H. A. Fingerhut 1960 Washington avenue. New York. 

A. J. Blumenthal 1 IS W. 111th street. New York. 

J. E. Strauss 352 118th street, New York. 

C. F. McManus 425 Pleasant avenue. New York. 

Lydia B. Koch Hotel Lexington. New York. 

Chas. F. Mitchell 56 Pine street. New York. 

E. A. Kates 352 118th street, New York. 

J. W. Weber Jamaica. L. I. 

L. J. Weiss 421 W. 118th street. New York. 

A report on examination dated April 6, 1909, shows the finan- 
cial statement of this association as of December 31, 1908, to be 
as follows: 

LEDGER ASSETS 



Real estate owned 


$10,000 00 




Less incumbrances 


9, 500 00 


$500 00 

2. 000 00 










2.200 00 


Loan secured by pledge of real estate . 




460 00 
161 62 






286 61 


Gross uncollected premiums not over 2 


i months due 


5.037 18 


Total ledger assets 




$10,645 41 



NON-LEDGER ASSETS 
Interest accrued on mortgage 



Total assets $10, 692 99 

DEDUCT ASSETS NOT ADMITTED 

Loan secured bv pledge of real estate $460 00 

Depreciation from book value of stock 2. 200 00 2.660 00 

Total admitted assets $8. 032 99 



LIABILITIES 
Unpaid fire losses: 

Adjusted and due $162 70 

Adjusted and not due 733 59 

Unadjusted 575 00 

Resisted 2. 215 72 



Unearned premiums: 

On one year risks $7. 709 09 

On term risks 196 3 1 



$3. 687 01 



7. 905 



Commissions and brokerage on uncollected premiums 1 , 662 27 

Taxes on real estate due 150 00 

State taxes accrued on premiums 136 57 



Garfield Assurance Fire Lloyds 37 

Taxes due to board of fire underwriters 174 65 

Unpaid bills ] , 083 19 

Return premiums unpaid 145 65 

Interest due and accrued 122 50 



Total liabilities $15, 067 31 



Excess of liabilities over assets $7, 034 32 



An examination of this association shows the financial condi- 
tion of this association on May 31, 1909, to have been as follows : 



ledger assets 

Mortgage loan 

Book value of stock 

Loan secured by pledge of real estate 

Cash in bank 

Gross uncollected premiums not over 3 months due 

Total ledger assets 



NON-LEDGER ASSETS 
Interest accrued on mortgage 100 00 



$2 


000 


00 


2 


200 


00 




460 


00 




9 


85 


2 


204 


42 


$6, 


874 


27 



Total assets $6 , 974 27 



DEDUCT ASSETS NOT ADMITTED 

Loan secured by pledge of real estate $460 00 

Depreciation from book value of stock 2, 200 00 2, 660 00 



Total admitted assets $4, 314 27 



LIABILITIES 
Unpaid fire losses: 

Adjusted and due $2, 180 25 

Adjusted and not due 545 00 

Unadjusted 660 00 

Resisted 1 , 820 72 

Unearned premiums: 

On one year risks $5, 455 1 

On term risks 101 16 

Commissions and brokerage on uncollected premiums. . . 

State taxes due on premiums 

Taxes due to board of fire underwriters 

Unpaid bills 

Return premiums unpaid 

Total liabilities 

Excess of liabilities over assets . 



$5 


.205 


97 


5 


556 

727 


34 

45 




136 


57 




106 


SO 




830 


29 




178 


33 


$12 


741 


75 


$8 


427 


48 



38 Lloyds Report 



INTERNATIONAL FIRE OFFICE OF NEW YORK CITY 

Home Office, 56 Pine Street, New York 
Attorney-in-fact, Charles F. Mitchell 



Date of organization March 17, 1892. 

Original underwriters Samuel Milch, Benjamin Holt, John 

Hegeinan. 

Original attorney-in-fact Samuel Milch. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Unknown. No records available. Prob- 
ably three fire policies issued. 

Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. " Lenox Fire Lloyds of the City of 

New York," from March 17. 1892, 
to July 22, 1895. 
" Merchants and Mechanics' Fire 
Lloyds.*' from July 22, 1895, to 
April 15, 1902. 
" International Fire Office," from 
April 15, 1902, to date. 

Articles of association, when filed with 

the department ' ' August 28. 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Not entitled to transact business. 

Eeferences to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . Attorney-General requested to pro- 
ceed against association to restrain 
it from transacting business on Jan- 
uary 9, 1903; said action com- 
menced June 14, 1903, but not 
carried through ; attorney-general 
requested to commence action 
against association on April 8, 1908. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income, 1908 $3.16. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1909 $27,500. 

Charles F. Mitchell, the present attorney, informed yonr ex- 
aminer that all the original papers and records with the excep- 
tion of the minute book were destroyed, and it is impossible to 
ascertain what amount of business, if any, was transacted before 
October 1, 1892. The minute book shows the following: 

The first meeting was held March 17, 1892, at which the 
original organizers were present. The same underwriters were 



International Fire Office of New York City 39 

present at meetings held April 19 and July 19, 1892. No other 
underwriters were added until April 10, 1895, when Herman 
Fichter and Barnet Levy were added. On April 26, 1895, 
Joseph Hegeman and Benjamin Holt, two of the original or- 
ganizers resigned, and M. B. Fertig, J. Fertig and J. Schrank 
were elected underwriters. On September 30, 1895, the follow- 
ing were elected underwriters: 

Michael Dunnegan, W. J. Moore, M. Englehardt, Sam Geren- 
stein, Herman Morris, Abraham Lewis, Edward T. Conway, Max 
Fertig, James Flannery, Robert H award, M. Gerenstein, Joseph 
Fertig, David Heperin, Samuel Katz, Hilarius LafT, Isidor Nacht, 
Henry Maass, M. Femman, Bernhard Zeller and Alfred Robinson. 

At the same meeting William J. Moore, More Engelhardt and 
Herman Fichter were appointed attorneys-in-fact. A number 
of new underwriters were added on October 8, 1895 and Novem- 
ber 29, 1895. On March 18, 1896, More Engelhardt resigned 
as attorney. At a meeting held on April 20, 1897, fifteen 
underwriters resigned. On April 19, 1898, Tyroler & Co., con- 
sisting of A. Tyroler and Samuel Milch, were appointed deputy 
attorneys. On April 18, 1899, sixteen underwriters were ex- 
pelled for not attending meetings. On April 17, 1900, M. B. 
Fertig was elected attorney-in-fact. On April 15, 1902, Morris 
W. Sheldon and Charles F. Mitchell were elected attorneys in 
place of M. B. Fertig, and the name was changed to " Inter- 
national Fire Office." On May 31, 1902, L. B. Koch and T, J. 
Madden were elected underwriters. On August 7, 1902, C. W. 
Darling, George A. Lund, John S. Jenkins, W. K. Hatwood and 
Walter P. Judson were elected underwriters. On January 21, 
1903, M. W. Sheldon resigned as attorney. The following ap- 
pears in the minutes of a meeting held on April 20, 1909: 

"The attorney reported that many of the old underwriters hav- 
ing retired and new underwriters having been admitted to the 
association, he thought it desirable to again become actively in- 
terested in soliciting business, but to limit the liability to Greater 
New York." 

Arthur S. Sherer in his report to the comptroller under date 
of April 16, 1896, stated: " By a book purporting to be a policy 
legister of the said Lenox Fire Lloyds of the city of New York, 



40 Lloyds Report 

the said Lloyds did issue policies of insurance to the following 
individuals, each policy dated March 17, 1892, being for a term 
of one year, an amount of $500 and a premium of $2.00 to wit, 
Edward Adler, Samuel Milch, Joseph Nachsatz, Wolfe Rends- 
ling." The report also states that these policies were renewed 
in 1893, 1894 and 1895, and three additional policies were also 
issued during these years. Also, " Thai the gross premium re- 
ceipts of the said Merchants and Mechanics Fire Lloyds of New 
York city on business done in this state was as follows : 

Date of organization to June 30, 1892 $8 00 

June 30, 1892. June 30, 1893 10 00 

June 30, 1893 June 30, 1894 14 00 

June 30, 1894 June 30, 1895 21 00" 

Ernest I. Edgcomb in his report dated December 30, 1902, 
stated that in his opinion this association was organized by means 
of forged signatures some time in 1894 or 1895. 

On January 9, 1903, the department requested the attorney- 
general to commence action against this association to restrain it 
from the further transaction of business. 

An action was commenced by the attorney-general against this 
association on June 14, 1903, but said action was not carried 
through. 

In 1902 Charles F. Mitchell purchased the right to transact 
business from Morris W. Sheldon of Utica, ~N. Y., and an active 
business was transacted until 1905 when active business ceased, 
only a few policies being written in 1906 and 1907 for the pur- 
pose of keeping the so-called charter alive. Active business was 
again resumed on December 26, 1908. 

On April 8, 1908, the attorney-general was again requested to 
commence an action against this association to restrain it from 
the further transaction of business. 

A report on examination of the Garfield Assurance Fire Lloyds, 
dated April 6, 1909, shows that that association and the Inter- 
national Fire Office are being operated through Charles F. 
Mitchell, attorney, and that the business of his office is equally 
divided between the two associations. 



International Fire Office of New York City 41 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this associa- 
tion, each assuming a maximum liability of $5,000, are as 
follows : 

Name. Address. 

G. Pendreigh 44 Court street, Brooklyn. 

Sam Ameone 42 West 33d street, New York. 

Joseph Flynn 132 Nassau street, New York. 

J. Rosenthal 1493 Lexington avenue, New York. 

Sam Block 116 East Broadway, New York. 

Jacob Amion 42 West 33d street, New York. 

Sam Rosenthal Ill East Broadway, New York. 

L. B. Koch 210 West 94th street, New York. 

Charles F. Mitchell 56 Pine street, New York. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

assets 

Cash in office $193 16 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 653 40 



Total assets $846 56 



LIABILITIES 

Unearned premiums $329 86 

Commissions and other charges due agents and brokers 98 01 



Total liabilities $427 87 



42 Lloyds Report 



ISTHMUS LLOYDS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 

Home Office, 95 William Street, New York 
Attorney-in-fact, Courtland P. Hull, Jr. 



Date of organization October 20, 1886. 

Original underwriters Greenwich Insurance Co., Niagara In- 
surance Co., Piza Nephews & Co., 
{ Isaac Brandon & Bros., Maduro & 
Son, J. N. Recuro, Gerard O. Lewis, 
Amandez Guerraro & Bros., Hen- 
ri quez & Son, S. Delia tore. 

Original attorneys-in-fact Whipple <fc Co., consisting of A. W. 

Whipple, J. L. Parraga, David F. 
Casey. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Large number of fire policies written. 

Changes in name Probably branch of " South and 

North American Lloyds." Present 
title assumed October 26, 1886. 

Articles of association, when filed with 

the department August 18, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . January 20, 1909. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income, 1908 $4.15. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $750. 

The original individual underwriters seem to have insured 
small parts of each risk, the two insurance companies as under- 
writers taking most of each risk. The same ten original under- 
writers transacted business in small amounts until February, 1887, 
when the Exchange Fire Insurance Company and the American 
Insurance Company were added as underwriters. 

This association was organized by the owners of the so-called 
charter of the " South and N"orth American Lloyds," for the 
purpose of transacting a fire insurance business, the old associa- 
tion having transacted only a marine business. The original 
policy registers show a large number of fire risks assumed before 
October 1, 1892. 

The individual underwriters seemed to have dropped out before 
1892, and during that year practically the only underwriters were 



Isthmus Lloyds of the City of New York 43 

the three corporations, viz : The Greenwich, Niagara and Ameri- 
can Insurance Companies and Whipple & Company. It appears 
that in 1892, but one policy was issued by underwriters other than 
the three corporations. This only policy was issued to Isaac 
Brandon & Bros., for $3,160, and of this risk J. L. Parraga and 
David P. Casey, of Whipple & Co., assumed $80 each. The 
next date at which any individual underwriter appears upon a 
policy was April 27, 1893. In January, 1894, Alonzo Lewis and 
Courtlandt P. Hull, Jr., having secured the right to transact 
business, were elected attorneys in place of Whipple & Co. Under 
these attorneys an active business was carried on until April, 
!8 98, when active business ceased. In 1899, Courtlandt P. Hull, 
Jr., was appointed sole attorney. During 1899 and 1900, the 
association issued about 10 policies in small amounts. In April, 
1902, J. W. Patterson and W. J. Howey were appointed attorneys 
to act with C. P. Hull, Jr. Messrs. Patterson and Howey seem 
to have been the active attorneys until April, 1907. A suit has 
been brought by Patterson & Howey, as attorneys, against one of 
the subscribers for his proportion of losses during the years 1902 
to 1907. The subscribers are defending the suit and demand an 
accounting by the attorneys for the years between 1902 and 1907. 
To date, the subscribers have been unable to obtain the books and 
records of the association during that period. Examiners from 
This department reported, under date of April 30, 1908, that 
they were unable to make an examination of the condition and 
affairs of this association as they were unable to obtain the neces- 
sary records, from the attorneys, between 1902 and 1907. 

Since 1907, Courtlandt P. Hull, Jr., has been the sole attorney- 
in-fact and for a period in 1907 transacted a considerable amount 
of business. Since then only a few policies have been written. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this associa- 
tion, each assuming a maximum liability of $2,500, are as 
follows : 

Name. Address. 

F. N. Applebaugh Montclair, N. J. 

John T. Barry 1263 Dean street, Brooklyn. 

H. E. Cleveland 519 West 173d street. New York. 

S. B. Downes 148 West 130th street, New York. 

Edward W. Dufft 474 Second street, Brooklyn. 

R. O. Hanbold 519 West 173d street, New York. 



44 Lloyds Report 

C. P. Hull'. Jr 360 West 21st street, New York. 

W. T, Herrity 72 West 118th street, New York. 

W. R. Janeway New Brunswick, N. J. 

A. K. Mack 157 West 72d street, New York. 

A. A. Smith 446 Eighth street, Brooklyn. 

Henry Ungrich, Jr White Plains, N. Y. 

W. W. Urquhart, Jr 78 Madison avenue, New York. 

Edward Weinack Elizabeth, N. J. 

E. G. Williams Washington, D. C. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department shows its financial condition on December 81, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Cash in bank $1, 521 80 

Gross premiums in course of collection not more than three 

months due 2 00 

Total assets $1. 523 80 



LIABILITIES 
Unearned premiums $2 08 



Lloyds, New York 45 



LLOYDS, NEW YOKK 

Home Office, 1 Liberty Street, New York 
Attorney-in-fact, Ralph H. Folsom 



Date of organization March 12, 1892. 

Original underwriters C. Douglas Lord, Augustus G. Fisher, 

John L. Mason. 

Original attorney-in-fact C. Douglas Lord. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. One policy of fire insurance issued. 
Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. Firemen's Fire Lloyds of New York. 

from March 12, 1892, to October 19, 
1895. 
Jefferson Fire Lloyds, from October 

19, 1895, to December 22, 1902. 
Seaboard Fire Underwriters, from De- 
cember 22, 1902, to November 2, 
1905. 
Old Colony Fire Office, from November 

2, 1905, to February 4, 1909. 
Lloyds, New York, from February 4, 
1909, to date. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department August 30, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Not entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and Action brought by attorney-general 
legal proceedings against, if any. . . February 28, 1896, to restrain asso- 
ciation from transacting business. 
Action discontinued February 13, 1901, 

with costs to plaintiff. 
Referred to attorney-general January 
9, 1903, November 1, 1905, and 
April 8, 1908. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income, 1908 $31.25. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $5,500. 

The records of the association show a policy of fire insurance 
dated March 12, 1892, issued to William Muir and running for a 
term of three years. The records do not show any other policies 
of insurance issued by the association until March, 1895, 
although the minute books show meetings held at intervals during 
that period. 

At a meeting held on March 19, 1895, E. J. Bennett was 
elected attorney-in-fact in place of C. D. Lord. At a meeting 



46 Lloyds Report 

'held on April 2, 1895, Charles W. Peasley was elected attorney 
in place of E. J. Bennett and there seems to have been a general 
change in underwriters. 

Under date of February 8, 1896, the attorney-general brought 
an action against Peter B. Vermilye, one of the underwriters, to 
restrain this association from the further transaction of the busi- 
ness of insurance in this state, on the ground that it was not 
legally transacting business on October 1, 1892. On February 13, 
1901, on motion of the plaintiff, an order was entered at a special 
term of the Supreme Court at the city of New York, the Honor- 
able Francis M. Scott, justice presiding, discontinuing the suit 
with costs to the plaintiff. 

Arthur L. Sherer, a commissioner appointed by the state comp- 
troller on April 22, 1896, made the following report: 

" I am informed that the Jefferson Fire Lloyds has retired 
from business and cancelled all policies." 

On January 7, 1902, H. Y. Miller was appointed attorney in 
place of C. W. Peasley, and on November 15, 1902, Milton 
Berlinger was appointed attorney in place of H. Y. Miller. On 
December 12, 1902, S. R. Tobin was appointed attorney in place 
of Mr. Berlinger and there seems to have been a complete change 
of underwriters. 

Ernest I. Edgcomb, in his report on Lloyds associations dated 
December 30, 1902, said that in his opinion this association was 
illegally organized by means of forged signatures or other fraudu- 
lent means and was not doing business on October 1, 1892. 

On January 14, 1903, the superintendent of insurance re- 
quested the attorney-general to commence an action against this 
association to restrain it from the further transaction of business 
in this state. 

Under date of May 21, 1903, the following letter was written 
to the attorneys of this association: 

May 21, 1903. 

Messrs. Tobix fr Tobix, Attorneys, Seaboard Fire Underwriters 
of New York, 100 William street, New Yorlc city. 

Gentlemen. — Upon investigation and hearing of the facts con- 
nected with the organization of the Seaboard Fire Underwriters 



Lloyds, New York 47 

of New York this department, in conjunction with the attorney- 
general's office, has arrived at the conclusion that the predecessors 
of the Seaboard Fire Underwriters of New York were legally en- 
gaged in the business of insurance on the first day of October. 
1892, and that nothing has transpired since that time which has 
deprived the present successors now known as the Seaboard Fire 
Underwriters of New York of the franchise or the right to trans- 
act insurance business. 

Yours truly, 

Francis Hendricks, 

Superintendent. 

On November 1, 1905, the question of the right of this associa- 
tion to transact business was referred to the attorney-general, on 
the question as to whether, after one set of underwriters under 
the name of " Jefferson Fire Lloyds " have decided to discontinue 
writing policies of fire insurance, a new aggregation of under- 
writers to be known as the " Old Colony Fire Office of New 
York " can write business under the same franchise. A letter 
from S. Eichard Tobin, the attorney, dated October 30, 1905, 
stated that this procedure was to be taken. 

On November 2, 1905, E. Stafford was elected attorney-in-fact 
in place of S. K. Tobin. From 1905 to 1908, this association 
has transacted but a very little business, keeping about a dozen 
policies in force. 

On March 14, 1906, Henry W. Mahar was elected attorney- 
in-fact in place of E. Stafford. 

On September 22, 1908, your examiner interviewed Emile H. 
Brie, of 840 Flatbush avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y., and Mr. Brie 
made the following affidavit: 

In the matter of the Old Colony Fire Office of New York, form- 
erly the Seaboard Fire Underwriters, the Jefferson Fire Lloyds 
and the Firemen's Fire Lloyds. 

State of New York, "1 

City and County of New York, J 

Emiee H. Brie, being duly sworn, says that he residps at 
840 Flatbush avenue, in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New 
York, that he is over eighty-five years of age, a pensioner of the 
United States and a citizen, thereof, for more than sixty-four 



48 Lloyds Report 

years ; that he is a survivor of the war with Mexico and has served 
in the Civil War. 

More than a dozen years ago deponent, then in business and 
prosperous, was induced by parties in whom he had confidence, to 
engage in Lloyds insurance of which he knew nothing, furnishing 
the necessary capital and inducing his friends to become subscrib- 
ers, but the only Lloyds in which he was ever interested was the 
Jefferson Lloyds which he purchased for $1,000 from C. W. Peas- 
ley and Herbert L. Smith as partners who represented the owners. 

Deponent further states that before buying the charter through 
Peasley and Smith, he thoroughly investigated the so-called fran- 
chise and thus met the original subscribers, C. Douglas Lord, 
residing in !New Jersey, John L. Mason of Brooklyn, and Augus- 
tus G. Fisher, and was present at one of their meetings when busi- 
ness was transacted. 

After that deponent frequently met the said parties ; C. Doug- 
las Lord died a few years thereafter ; John L. Mason died more 
recently ; he was the patentee and manufacturer of the well known 
Mason's fruit jars, a man of wealth; Augustus G. Fisher is, to 
the best of deponent's belief, still alive. 

Deponent further states that he was well acquainted with Wil- 
liam Muir, to whom the first policy of the Jefferson Fire Lloyds 
was issued. 

Deponent further states that shortly after the purchase of the 
charter he became convinced that Lloyds insurance was not profit- 
able and gave up his interest in the Jefferson Lloyds and since that 
time deponent says he has had nothing whatever to do with Lloyds 
insurance. 

Deponent further states that he knew Hubert L. Smith and dis- 
covered that he was a convict from Tennessee, but that the follow- 
ing abstract taken from an affidavit made by Hubert L. Smith 
under date of March 5, 1896. and filed in the insurance depart- 
ment, is false in every particular. 

" Brie told me that Peasley gave each subscriber, when they 
had a meeting a five dollar check, and they went down to Uffo 
Striker John's restaurant, corner of Maiden Lane and Liberty 
street. Striker John told me that he cashed some of these checks 
and asked me were they good; he told me that the gang came in 
there and he cashed the checks for them. They got five dollars 
apiece for signing as underwriters to the Jefferson Lloyds. This 
man Brie made up some of the extra papers, minute books, etc., of 
several of the Lloyds sold in the summer of 1895. I am informed 
that Brie's picture is in the rogue's gallery." 



Lloyds, New Yoke: 49 

Deponent further states that he has no interest whatever in the 
Old Colony Fire Office and has not known Mr. S. E. Tobin more 
than a month. 

Emile H. Brie. 

Sworn to before me, this 22nd 
day of September, 1908. 

John E. W. Erminger, 

Commissioner of Deeds, New York City. 

A report of your examiner dated August 24, 1908, as to the 
right of this association to transact business was referred to the 
attorney-general. 

On October 1, 1908, the superintendent of insurance withdrew 
that portion of your examiners' report " questioning the legal in- 
corporation of this aggregation." 

At a meeting of the association held on February 2, 1909, the 
following underwriters resigned: John T. Sheridan, Eobert 
Roberts, Henry W. Mahar and Thomas R. Tobin. The follow- 
ing underwriters were elected : R. IT. Folsom, Louis Lorence 
and Luther Holton. Mr. Folsom was appointed attorney-in-fact. 
The present attorney-in-fact informed your examiner that the 
so-called charter was purchased from Thomas R. Tobin and his 
associates. 

The intention of the underwriters of the association is to 
engage in a -surplus line insurance business with twenty-five 
underwriters. Each underwriter is to make an initial cash 
deposit of $1,000 and assume a maximum liability of $9,000 in 
addition to this deposit. The aggregate liability assumed will 
be $250,000. 

The new underwriters have issued one policy of fire insurance 
on household furniture for a premium of $2. There are in all 
about twelve policies now in force. 

The present attorney-in-fact was unable to show your examiner 
any record of policies issued or in force between 1897 and 1902. 
The records show but one policy in force from March 12, 1892, 
to March 12, 1895. A number of policies were written in 1896 
and 1897, and from 1903 to date, a few policies have been in 
force at all times. 



50 Lloyds Report 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this association, 
each assuming an unlimited liability, are as follows: 

Name. r T Address. 

R. H. Folsom 1 Liberty street, New York. 

Louis Lorence 100 William street, New York. 

Luther Holton New York city. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department, shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 
Cash in office $85 00 

LIABILITIES 
Unearned premiums $15 02 



Lumeer Underwriters 51 



LUMBER UNDERWRITERS 

Home Office, 60 Broadway, New York 
Attorney-in-fact, Eugene F. Perry 



Date of organization March 7, 1892. 

Original underwriters O. R. Meyer, J. C. Hatie, H. Morgen- 

than, C. J. Braisted, T. W. Mont- 
gomery. 

Original attorney-in-fact J. C. Hatie. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Considerable. No available records as 

to specific amount. 

Changes in name Underwriters at Mutual Lloyds, from 

March 7, 1892, to July 9, 1900. 
Lumber Underwriters at Mutual 
Lloyds, from July 9, 1900, to De- 
cember 21, 1906. 
Lumber Underwriters, from December 
21, 1906, to date. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department September 1, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general ana 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . None. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit, December 31, 

1908 $100,000. 

Premium income, 1908 $191,729.91. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $11,117,608. 

At a meeting held April 30, 1892, at which the original under- 
writers were present, " it was decided to issue policies at once 
in order to perfect the Lloyds and put it in working order." All 
the original underwriters were made members of the advisory 
board. At a meeting of the advisory board held July 1, 1892, 
the resignations of Messrs. Morgenthan, Hatie, Braisted and 
Montgomery were accepted, to take effect July 5th, and Messrs. 
Henry Offerman, A. Rasines, E. Miller and E. L. Butler were 
elected to fill the vacancies. Meetings were held on July 9th and 
September 15, 1892, and on the latter date the attorney was 
instructed to pay the loss of the American Preserves Company. 



52 Lloyds Report 

This association was writing a considerable amount of fire in- 
surance business on October 1, 1892, and continued very actively 
engaged in business until October 4, 1897. At this time the 
association was considering a reinsurance with the Lincoln Fire 
Insurance Company. This reinsurance was not however effected. 
From this date until June 14, 1900, the association kept in force 
a few policies and paid a number of losses. Meetings of the 
underwriters were held at regular intervals during that period. 

At a meeting held on June 14, 1900 1 , J. C. Hatie resigned as 
attorney-in-fact and F. W. Mattocks was elected in his place. 
On July 9, 1900, the name was changed to " Lumber Under- 
writers at Mutual Lloyds." From this date an active business 
has been carried on to date, the writing being limited to lumber 
and kindred risks. 

On May 21, 1906, E. F. Perry was appointed attorney in 
place of F. W. Mattocks. 

At a meeting held December 21, 1906, the name was changed 
to " Lumber Underwriters." 

Each of the fifteen underwriters now have $6,666.66 deposited 
with the executive committee, composed of three underwriters. 
The total deposit at all times is at least $100,000. Profits are 
declared once a year. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this associa- 
tion, each assuming an unlimited liability, are as follows : 

Name. Address. 

F. R. Babcock Pittsburg, Pa. 

Fred'k W. Colo 29 Broadway. New York. 

C. H. Carleton, of Mill, Gray, Carle- 
ton & Co Cleveland, O. 

W. A. Holt, vice-president Holt Lubri- 
cator Co Oconto, Wis. 

W. C. Laidlaw, of A Laidlaw Lumbor 

Co Toronto, Ont. 

H. S. Lee, of Mixer & Co Buffalo. N. Y. 

Robert C. Lippincott North American Bid., Philadelphia, Pa. 

Lewis Dill Baltimore. Md. 

Eugene F. Perry 66 Broadway, New York. 

C. H. Prescott, Jr., of Saginaw Bay 

Co '. Cleveland, O. 

Frank C. Rice, of Rice & Lockwood 

Lubricating Co Springfield, Mass. 

Horace F. Taylor, of Taylor & Crate . . Buffalo, N. Y. 

Robert W. Higbie 45 Broadway, New York. 

George F. Craig Philadelphia, Pa. 



Lumber Underwriters 53 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Cash in bank $181, 179 45 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 33, 782 55 

Total assets $214, 962 00 

LIABILITIES 

Losses and claims for losses unadjusted $8,400 00 

Unearned premiums 115, 043 02 

Salaries and miscellaneous accounts due or accrued 2, 530 60 

Reinsurance premiums 4, 303 59 

Total liabilities , $130, 277 21 



54 Lloyd? Report 



MANUFACTURER'S LLOYDS 

Home Office. Ill William Street. New York 
Attorneys-in-fact, Jameson & Frelingkuvsen 



Date of organization May 12. 1902. 

Original underwriters Gates Thalheimer. Charles M. Warner. 

Charles W. Snow. Charles E. Kraus. 
Arthur Jenkin. Clarence G. Brown. 

Original attorney-in-fact William Cowie. 

Business done prior to October 1. 1892. Records not available. 

Articles of association, when riled with 

the department July 26, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . Xone. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters deposit. December 31. 

1908 $62,500. 

Premium income, 190S $40,618.61. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 190S $4,234,561. 

The first policy of lire insurance was issued on May 12, 1892, 
to John Moore, the amount of the risk being $1,000, This 
association, its home office being in Syracuse. X. Y.. probably 
transacted a small amount of business until May, 1893. Your 
examiner has been unable to obtain any records showing what 
amount of business was transacted prior to October 1. 1892, with 
the exception of the one policy mentioned above. On this date 
E. C. Jameson and J. S. Frelinghuysen of the firm of Jameson vr. 
Frelinghuysen. were appointed attorneys-in-fact. An active busi- 
ness was commenced through these attorneys and has been carried 
on to date. 

Its outstanding risks were reinsured on January IS. 1897, in 
the then newly organized Insurance Company of the State of Xew 
York Tsince retired) and the risks of the United Cities Lloyds, 
under the same management, were then reinsured by the Manu- 
facturer's Lloyds, the former Lloyds retiring. 



Manufacturer's Lloyds .55 

An advisory committee has charge of the financial affairs of 
the association and all its meetings are held in Syracuse, New 
York. The advisory committee is composed of the following who 
are all residents of Syracuse, New York. 

Gates Thalheimer Chairman. 

William Cowie Secretary. 

C. W. Snow 

A. E. Nettleton 

Willett L. Brown 

Francis Hendricks 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this associa- 
tion, each assuming a maximum liability of $10,000, are as 

Name. Address. 

Frank Hiscock Syracuse, N. Y. 

Francis Hendricks Syracuse, N. Y. 

Jameson & Frelinghuysen 76 William street, New York. 

John Dobson Philadelphia, Pa. 

James Dobson Philadelphia, Pa. 

Charles W. Snow Syracuse, N. Y. 

Estate of H. M. Jameson 76 William street, New York. 

Wm. B. Cogswell Syracuse, N. Y. 

Gates Thalheimer Syracuse, N. Y. 

William Cowie Syracuse, N. Y. 

A. E. Nettleton Syracuse, N. Y. 

Dean E. Brown Syracuse, N. Y. 

Willet L. Brown Syracuse, N. Y. 

I. M. Stettenheim 45 William street, New York. 

J. S. Bache & Co New York. 

Chester H. King Syracuse, N. Y. 

Wm. H. Kellner Newark, N. J. 

John Moore Syracuse, N. Y. 

Edward Joy Syracuse, N. Y. 

Lyman C. Smith Syracuse, N. Y. 

W. L. Smith Syracuse, N. Y. 

Wilbur S. Peck Syracuse, N. Y. 

August Falker Syracuse, N. Y. 

Joseph S. Frelinghuysen 76 William street, New York. 

Jameson & Frelinghuysen 76 William street, New York. 

Note. — The firm of Jameson & Frelinghuysen assumes a liability of $20 000. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Book value of bonds and stocks owned $81, 000 3S 

Cash in association's office and in bank 15, 856 84 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 10, 604 51 

Market value of bonds over book value 39 62 



Total assets $107, 591 35 



56 Lloyds Report 

liabilities 
Losses and claims for losses: 

Unadjusted $9 . 037 00 

Resisted 1, 100 00 



Total unpaid losses and claims $10. 137 00 

Unearned premiums 17 , 968 75 

Commissions and other charges due agents or brokers 1. 408 45 

Return premiums 3. 652 24 



Total liabilities $33. 166 44 



Mercantile Lloyds of New York City 



MEKCAKTILE LLOYDS OF NEW YORK CITY 

Home Office, Little Falls, N. Y. 
Attorney-in-fact, Mercantile Surety Company 



Date of organization April 11, 1892. 

Original underwriters Nathan H. Weed, Samuel R. Weed, 

Walter P. Blackman, Irving M. 
Comes, Waldo E. Fuller. 

Original attorney-in-fact Nathan H. Weed. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Unknown; no records available. 
Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. Metropolitan Llovds, from September, 

1893, to July, 1896. 
Electric City Lloyds, from July, 1896, 

to December, 1897. 
Mercantile Lloyds of New York city, 
from November, 19u2, to date. 

License leased to Frank A. Colley, November, 1902, in 

force until December, 1903. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department August 1, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Legality uncertain and doubtful. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . Referred to attorney-general, January 

9, 1903. April 14, 1908. 
Unsatisfied judgments, however, against 
Frank A. Colley, as attorney for 
Mercantile Lloyds of New York, to 
the amount of $10,490.29. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

L T nderwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income, 1908 $50. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $5,000. 

The first meeting of this association was held on April 11, 

1892. It claims to have no records showing what volume of 
business was transacted before October 1, 1892. 

The second meeting of the association was held January 10, 

1893. At a meeting held on September 3, 1893, it became the 
Metropolitan Lloyds, and the then attorney-in-fact was succeeded 
by E. E. Satterlee & Co. On December 19, 1893, such attorneys 
were succeeded by Beecher & Company. 

On April 6, 1893, J. Q. A. Walker was elected an underwriter 
in place of I. U. Connes. 



58 Lloyds Report 

On January 15, 1894, Messrs. Weed, Walker and Fuller re- 
signed, and new underwriters were elected. A few days there- 
after, Henry Edwards & Co. became attorneys-in-fact. 

On May 20, 1896, all the then underwriters resigned and Geo. 
P. Germain, Eugene Bertrand, Jacob Davis and John C. Bertrand 
were elected in their stead ; the last named being appointed 
attorney-in-fact. 

On July 10, 1896, the office of this association was moved to 
Buffalo, and the following additional underwriters were elected : 
Edgar B. Jewett, Ernest Wende, David Tucker, Hiram Walz, 
John Eeist, Chas. E. Williams, Frank L. Bapst, James Fenton, 
Chas. M. Weyand, J. W. Budgman, G. F. Zeller & Sons, Fred'k. 
C. M. Lautz, Marshall, Clinton & Rebadow and J. Wm. 
Niederprum. This association thereupon became the Electric 
City Lloyds, with George E. Germain as attorney-in-fact. 

From 1893 to 1897, the Electric City Lloyds transacted a con- 
siderable volume of business. 

In 1897, however, it reinsured its business, Avith the exception 
of a few policies, and, at a meeting held December 15, 1897, 
adopted the following resolutions : 

" Resolved, That all business from this date be suspended and 
no more policies issued. 

Resolved, That the attorneys-in-fact be instructed to either can- 
cel or reinsure all outstanding policies at the earliest possible 
moment. 

Resolved, That the attorneys-in-fact be authorized and in- 
structed to issue six policies in an amount of $100 each, on either 
dwellings or household furniture, and that they be further in- 
structed to issue thereafter policies for a like amount on like 
property. 

Resolved, That the advisory committee be requested to close up 
the affairs at the earliest possible date so far as the general busi- 
ness goes, and that they are hereby given full power to take what- 
ever action is deemed by them advisable in tbe premises ; that they 
also do those things necessary to preserve the existence and con- 
tinuance of this Lloyds and the preservation of its legal right to 
do business. " 

This association seems then to have been dormant until Septem- 
ber 5, 1902, when John W. Fitzgerald, Sidney W. Petrie, D. F. 



Mercantile Lloyds oe New York City 59 

Churchill, J. C. Henefalt, Frank E. Sheldon, W. E. Broad and 
John Bryson, having purchased its alleged right to do business, 
were elected underwriters. 

Thereafter, on November 18, 1902,, most of the underwriters 
of the Electric City Lloyds resigned, and the name of the asso- 
ciation again became the Mercantile Lloyds, of New York city. 

On the last mentioned date, Frank A. Colley was appointed 
deputy attorney-in-fact for such subscribers as should give him a 
personal power of attorney, subject to and qualified by a so-called 
license, dated November 7, 1902, between John W. Fitzgerald 
and Frank A. Colley ; it being provided in a resolution adopted 
at a meeting of the underwriters that such license should not give 
the said Colley or his underwriters any rights or interests in the 
right of such association to do business, other than was provided 
in such license. The license or lease reads in part as follows : 

" Whereas, John W. Fitzgerald, party of the first part, is the 
sole owner of all of the rights to do insurance business and carry 
on the same under the title of the Electric City Llovds of Buffalo, 
N. Y." 

and provides that Frank A. Colley shall pay to the said Fitz- 
gerald a rental fee of $2,500 a year for such license or lease. 

On December 21, 1902, the Mercantile Surety Company, a 
corporation capitalized at $1,000, and officered by several of the 
then underwriters of this association, became the attorney-in-fact, 
and still remains such. 

In December, 1903, Frank A. Colley surrendered his so-called 
license or lease. On an examination made April 26, 1909, there 
were unsatisfied judgments against the said Colley as attorney 
for this association, all docketed in the New York clerk's office, 
in an aggregate amount of $10,490.29. 

From 1897 to 1909, other than the business written by the 
said Colley, this association has written but few policies — not 
to exceed fifteen a year. 

On April 12, 1909, John W. Fitzgerald, above mentioned, the 
active underwriter in charge of the affairs of this association, 
informed your examiner that, during the year 1908, he had en- 



60 Lloyds Report 

deavored to sell the right of this association to do business to the 
firm of Wilcox, Peck & Hughes, of New York, but that such sale 
had not been consummated. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this associa- 
tion, each assuming a maximum liability of $5,000, are as 
follows : 

Name. Address. 

John W. Fitzgerald Little Falls, N. Y. 

Sidney W. Petrie 228 Summer street, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Jos. C. Henafelt 124 College street, Buffalo, N. Y. 

John C. Bertrand 18 Gibbs street, Rochester, N. Y. 

Jacob Davis 203 Norwood avenue, Buffalo, N. Y. 

Frank E. Sheldon 1380 Broadway, New York. 

Geo. S. Bixby C arnegie Hall, New York. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 
Cash in bank $18 00 



LIABILITIES 
Unearned premium reserve $11 50 



To these liabilities should be added the sum of $10,490.29, the 
amount of judgments on file against Frank A. Colley, a former 
attorney of this association. This association is not, however, 
insolvent under section 142 of the insurance law, as the judg- 
ments were secured on losses on policies issued before May 19, 
3 905. 



Merchant's Fire Lloyds 61 



MEBCHANT'S FIKE LLOYDS 

Home Office, 111 William Street, New York 
Attorneys-in-fact, Jameson & Frelinghuysen and Henry Griffin. 



Date of organization September 27, 1888. 

Original underwriters Benjamin & Caspary, Frelander & 

Co., B. Bloomenthal & Co., Gold- 
smith & Klaut, Oppenhiem, Collins 
& Co., Levy Bros. & Co., Henry 
Newman & Co., Bobbins & Apple- 
ton, Trow Printing & Bookbinding 
Co., and S. Roitzer & Co. 

Original attorney-in-fact Henry Griffen. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Premium receipts year ending Decem- 
ber 31, 1892, $243,872. 

Edgecomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . None. 

Articles of association, when filed with 

the department July 26, 1902. 

Underwriters' deposit, December 31, 

1908 $14,000. 

Premium income, 1908 $40,324.16. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $3,449,695. 

The ledger of the association shows the following premium 
receipts : 

Year. Amount. 

1888-1889 $10, 647 

1890 16,472 

1891 72, 868 

1892 243. 872 

1893 438, 767 

1894 359, 351 

1895 256, 437 

1896 , 221, 597 

1897 158,940 

1898 117.983 



On September 1, 1899, a power of attorney was given to Henry 
Griffen, Edwin C. Jameson and Joseph S. Frelinghuysen, and a 
very large volume of fire insurance business has been transacted 
to date. 



62 Lloyds Report 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this associa- 
tion, each assuming a maximum liability of $10,000, are as 
follows : 

Name. Address. 

C. V. Meserole 76 William street, New York. 

Henry Griffen 305 W. Ninety-second street, New 

York. 

Edwin C. Jameson 76 William street, New York. 

Henry A. Loth 65 Greene street, New York. 

Adolph Knotlie 124 Fifth avenue, New York. 

Joseph S. Frelinghuysen 76 William street, Mew York. 

William H. Kellner Newark, N. J. 

Thalheimer Brothers 65 East Ninth street, New Y T ork. 

T. J. Ferguson New Orleans, La. 

Hale & Kilburn Mfg. Co Philadelphia, Pa. 

F. T. Nesbit 116 Nassau street, New York. 

Lit Brothers Philadelphia, Pa. 

Kaufman Brothers Pittsburg, Pa. 

Woodward & Lotrop \\ ashington, D. C. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
3 908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Book value of bonds and stocks owned $77, 996 00 

Cash in office and in bank 3, 593 84 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 6, 346 08 

Market value of bonds and stocks over book value 1. 174 00 



Total assets $89. 109 92 

LIABILITIES 
Losses and claims for losses : 

Unadjusted $1 , 028 00 

Resisted 400 00 

Total unpaid losses and claims $1 , 428 00 

Unearned premiums 17 , 055 00 

Commissions and other charges due agents or brokers 1,405 20 



Total Liabilities 



The National Underwriters oe America 63 



THE NATIONAL UNDERWRITERS OF AMERICA 

Home Office, 45 Cedar Street, New York 
Attorneys-in-fact, Hall & Trowbridge 



Date of organization May 1, 1892. 

Original underwriters Henry Newman, Samuel Reuh, Leo 

Sclilesinger, Moses Nathan, P. C. 
Ralli, Myer Foster, H. Richter's 
Sons, Isaac Stiebel, Charles Wehle, 
Ignatz Boskowitz, J. H. Lowen- 
stone, Nathan Bros., Bloomingdale 
Bros., C. K. Buckley, Henry Reiss, 
Philip Weinberg & Co., K. Mandell, 
Stern & Co. 

Original attorney-in-fact P. C. Ralli. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Premium receipts before April 30, 

1893, $63,544.95. Records as to 
business before October 1, 1892, not 
available. 

Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. Equitable Fire Lloyds, from May 1, 

1892, to November 26, 1902. 
From November 26, 1902, to date, 
National Underwriters of America. 

Articles of association, when filed with 

the department August 28, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Not entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . Referred to attorney-general January 

9, 1903. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit December 31, 

1908 $52,000. 

Premium income, 1908 $48,182.79. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $0,779,145. 

Eegular meetings were held commencing June 10, 1892, and, 
on April 30, 1893, the books of the association show premium 
receipts from fire policies issued of $63,544.95, and $28,036.95 
were paid in losses. 

On October 2, 1894, a reinsurance contract was proposed and 
approved with the East River Mutual Insurance Company. 

There is no record or indication of any meeting Iield between 
December 15, 1894, and May 14, 1897. From May 14, 1897, 



64: Lloyds Repoet 

there is no record of any meeting until April 26, 1899, on which 
date the following were elected underwriters: Messrs. W. McD. 
Pierson, A. E. Pierson, Robert M. Saxton, David Nelson, Wil- 
liam P. Allen, Dave H. Caruthers, Charles T. Rolf, Charles G. 
Clark, George P. Lear and J. L. Parsons. 

On the same date the following resigned as underwriters : 
Messrs. Stern & Co., C. H. Buckley, Bloomingdale Bros., Phillip 
Weinberg k Co., H. Richter s Sons, J. H. Loewenstone and Ignatz 
Boskowitz. 

On April 28, 1899, the following resigned: Nathan Bros., 
Moses Nathan, K. Mandell, Meyer Foster, Henry Rice, Isaac 
Steebel and Charles Wehle. 

Mr. Ernest I. Edgeomb in his report on Lloyds associations 
dated December 30, 1902, stated: 

" Policies or records of policies were produced showing risks 
of this concern expiring as late as May 27, 1897, but from May, 
1897, to August, 1902, no evidence by way of policies, policy regis- 
ters, cash books or other records was presented to your representa- 
tive, showing any assumption of risks for the said period of five 
years;" also c The present attorneys state that they have been in- 
formed that there were risks in existence from the years 1897 to 
1902, but they do not claim to have, nor have they presented to 
your representative, any competent proof, by affidavit, record or 
document, that such was the case." 

The attorneys were unable on May 25, 1909, to show your 
examiner any records of policies issued or in force from 1897 to 
1902. Since August, 1902, policies have been continuously in 
force. 

On August 21, 1902, P. C. Ralli resigned as attorney and 
A. R. Pierson was elected in his place. 

On or about November 26, 1902, Stanton & Company pur- 
chased the so-called charter or right to transact business from 
P. C. Ralli, and at a meeting held November 26, 1902, the old 
underwriters resigned and the following elected : Messrs. Francis 
S. Bangs, E. E. Hall, W. L. Van Sinderen, George A. Stanton, 
Charles A. Trowbridge and H. B. Sedgwick. 

On the same date Messrs. George A. Stanton, William L. Van 
Sinderen and E. E. Hall were appointed attorneys in place of 
A. R. Pierson. 



The ^Xatioisal Underwriters of America 65 

The first meeting after the purchase of the so-called charter 
seems to have been held on January 30, 1903, and the following 
underwriters elected: Messrs. Harvey Childs, Jr., Joseph B. 
Shea, Robert J. Dale, Charles X. Hanna, William W. Lawrence, 
Eben C. Stanwood, Eraser M. Moffatt, Mark T. Cox, Adolph 
Goepel, William J. Stitt, Robert C. Ogden, Charles H. Zehnder, 
Alfred Adler, Hans Schmidt, Willis L. Ogden, Charles C, 
Kellogg, August Heckscher, James M. Thomson, Martin Schren- 
keisen and Henry G. Gennert. 

At the same meeting the following resigned as underwriters: 
Messrs. George A. Stanton, William L. Van Sinderen, E. E. Hall 
-and Charles A. Trowbridge. 

The underwriters appointed Messrs. Stanton, Van Sinderen 
.and Hall as attorneys and general managers. 

On February 13, 1908, W T illiam L. Van Sinderen resigned as 
.attorney and general manager. 

Mr. George A. Stanton having died on February 17, 1908, at 
-a meeting held on February 18, 1908, Messrs. Hall and Charles 
A. Trowbridge were appointed attorneys-in-fact. 

Each underwriter is required to make a deposit of $2,000 with 
the advisory committee. The power of attorney given by each 
underwriter to the attorneys-in-fact provides in part as follows: 

"That my liability upon any one risk shall not exceed the sum of 
two thousand dollars ($2,000) and the aggregate of my liability 
upon all policies in force at any one time shall not exceed ten thou- 
sand dollars ($10,000) after the application of my share of the un- 
expended premiums of the said association remaining with the said 
attorneys or with the said advisory committee, the sum of two 
thousand dollars deposited with the said attorneys by me on the 
execution of this power of attorney being included as part of the 
said ten thousand dollars, and this limitation of liability shall be 
stated in all policies issued in my name " also the advisory com- 
mittee shall have authority " to determine what profits of the said 
"business, if any, shall be allotted to me at the end of such fiscal 
year ; to pay or cause to be paid to me such allotted interest and 
so much of the profits of the business as the committee shall 
deem proper, provided that such payment shall not be made if it 
would reduce the balance to my credit below the sum of two thou- 
sand dollars." 



66 Lloyds Kepokt 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this asso-. 
ciation, each assuming a maximum liability of $10,000, are as 
follows : 

Name. Address. 

Joseph E. Brown, of Blake Bros. & Co. Xew York and Boston. 

Francis S. Bangs, of Kingsley, Mabon 

& Co Xew York. 

H. B. Sedgwick, of H. B. Sedgwick 

& Co . London, England. 

Jacob D. Lit. of Lit Bros Philadelphia, Pa. 

Harvey Childs, Jr., of H. Childs & Co. Pittsburg, Pa. 

John F. Horman (Barnev Co.) Schenectady. 

Robert J. Dale, of Dale & Co .... Montreal. Canada. 

John G. Stephenson, Jr., 2d vice- 

' president Arbuthnot-Stephenson Co. Pittsburg, Pa. 

William W. Lawrence, vice-president 
Sterling White Lead Co. and of W. 
W. Lawrence & Co Pittsburg, Pa. 

Fraser M. Moffat, of The David Mof- 
fat Co New York. 

Adolph Goepel. of Goepel & Trube. . . Xew York. 

William J. Stitt, of Jacob Adler & 

Co Xew Y'ork. 

Robert C. Ogden, of the firm of John 

Wanamaker Xew York. 

Charles H. Zehnder. president Alle- 
gheny Ore & Iron Co Xew York. 

Charles Adler. of Jacob Adler & Co. Xew York. 

Hans Schmidt, of Schoellkopf & Co.. Buffalo. X. Y. 

Willis L. Ogden, of Willis L. Ogden 

& Co Xew York. 

Spencer Kellogg, of Charles C. Kel- 
logg & Sons Co Utica, X. Y. 

August Heckscher, general manager 

Xew Jersey Zinc Co Xew York. 

James M. Thomson, formerly of 

Brown. Thomson & Co * Hartford. Conn. 

Martin Schrenkeisen, capitalist Xew York. 

Henry G. Gennert, of Gennert & Gen- 

nert Xew York. 

Henry A. Sherwin, president The 

Sherwin-Williams Co Cleveland, O. 

Edward E. Hall, of Geo. A. Stanton 

& Co Xew York. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department shows its financial condition on December 31,. 
3 908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Book value of bonds and stocks owned $171, 225 00 

Cash in bank 16, 394 07 

Gross premiums in course of collection, representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 8, 490 16 

Interest due and accrued on bonds and stocks 2. 762 50 



Gross assets $198, 871 75 



The National Underwriters of America 67 

deduct assets not admitted 

Book value of bonds and stocks over market value Si, 325 00 

Total admitted assets $197. 546 73 



LIABILITIES 

Losses and claims for losses unadjusted $12, 081 86 

Unearned premiums 24, 718 12: 

Commissions and other charges due agents or brokers 2, 122 54 

Eeturn premiums 717 88 

Eeinsurance premiums 159 56 

Total liabilities $39, 799 96 



68 Lloyds Report 



NEW YORK CENTRAL LLOYDS 

Home Office, Little Falls, N. Y. 
Attorney-in-fact, John W. Fitzgerald 



Date of organization April 12, 1892. 

Original underwriters Watts T. Loomis, J. J. Gilbert, Geo. 

J. Harden, W. F. Lansing, John W. 
Fitzgerald, D. H. Burrell, H. V. 
Alexander, D. E. Knowlton, W. S. 
Reed, Robert Earl, 2d. 

Original attorney-in-fact John W. Fitzgerald. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. About 240 fire insurance policies 

issued. 
Changes in name, creation of branches, February 1, 1895, branch created 

etc known as " Brewers & Malsters 

Underwriters at New York Central 
Lloyds." Discontinued in 1904. 
April 1, 1903, branch created known 
as " Syracuse Mutual Fire Insur- 
ance Underwriters at New York 
Central Lloyds." Discontinued in 
1904. 
References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if anv. . . Referred to attorney-general January 

9, 1903, April 8, 1908. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department September 1, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Legality uncertain and doubtful. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income, 1908 $30. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $6,000. 

On August 1, 1893, Milton Clark was appointed attorney-in- 
fact to act jointly with Mr. John Fitzgerald. On April 1, 1896, 
Milton Clark retired as attorney-in-fact and since that date J. W. 
Fitzgerald has continued as the sole attorney-in-fact. 

From the records in the possession of this association it is 
evident that a considerable volume of fire insurance business was 
being transacted on October 1, 1892, about two hundred and 
forty (240) fire insurance policies being in force. 

Both branches had entirely different sets of underwriters and 
each operated as a separate entity from the original New York 



A t ew York Central Lloyds 69 

Central Lloyds. After Auguust, 1896, both branches resolved to 
write one form of policy, the names of all underwriters appearing 
thereon, and with one attorney-in-fact, in conjunction with the 
original Xew York Central Lloyds. A considerable volume of 
business was transacted until March 15, 1897, when the following 

resolution was adopted: 

> 
" Resolved, That general business be discontinued until such 
time as rates are increased and general business conditions have 
improved, but that the attorney is instructed to call annual meet- 
ings and to issue policies for small amounts on non-hazardous prop- 
erty, no policy to exceed from time to time $500, and that he 
also take such other steps as are necessary to maintain the organi- 
zation and underwriting rights of this association.' 7 

Since that date this association has transacted but a small 
amount of business, writing about twelve policies a year. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this asso- 
ciation, each assuming a maximum liability of $5,000, are as 
follows : 

Name. Address. 

Watts T. Loomis Little Falls, N. Y. 

J. J. Gilbert Little Falls, N. Y. 

W. F. Lansing Little Falls, N. Y. 

Robert Earl Herkimer, N. Y. 

John W. Fitzgerald Little Falls, N. Y. 

Thomas Ryan Syracuse, X. Y. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 



Cash in office $25 00 

LIABILITIES 
Unearned premiums $15 00 



70 Lloyds Report 



KEW YORK COMMERCIAL UNDERWRITERS 

Home Office, 3 South William Street, New York 
Attorneys-in-fact, Henry Stewart & Son 



Date of organization April 26, 1892. 

Original underwriters T. Edwin Potter, Andrew Schwamm, 

Charles A. Davis, Nathan Weed, 
Eli jali R. Kennedy, Edouard T. 
Mostert, F. G. Fancon, R. J. Dalton. 

Original attorneys-in-fact Weed & Kennedy. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. 185 fire policies issued. 

Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. Commercial Lloyds, from April 26, 

1892, to May 10, 1904. 
New York Commercial Underwriters, 

from May 10, 1904, to date. 
Charter sold to Henry Stewart & Son, 
inc., April 2, 1908.' 

Articles of association, when filed with 

the department Tune 14. 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . None. 

Kinds of insurance written Fire and ocean marine ; automobile in- 
surance written from January 1, 
1909, until June 6, 1909, when su- 
perintendent of insurance called 
upon association to discontinue 
writing same. 

Underwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income, 1908 $77,985.34. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31. 1908 $502,069. 

The minute book of the association also shows the minutes of 
a meeting of the " Metropolitan Lloyds " on June 1, 1892. It 
• seems that this association was organized on or about May 28, 
1892, and that a question had arisen as to whether this associa- 
tion was legally organized. The following resolution was passed 
at the meeting held June 1, 1892: 

" Resolved, That Messrs. Thompson and Bellows, as attorneys 
for the associates of the Metropolitan Lloyds, as at present, or as 
it may be hereafter constituted, be authorized and empowered to 
arrange with the associates of the Commercial Lloyds, as now 
existing, for the merging in the membership of the Commercial 



New York Commercial Underwriters 71 

Lloyds of the associates of the Metropolitan Lloyds, with sole con- 
trol to the latter, and the reorganization of the Commercial Lloyds 
on the exact basis of the present organization of the Metropolitan 
Lloyds." 

The " Metropolitan Lloyds " held another meeting on June 6, 
1892, and it appears that all arrangements had been completed 
for the merger with the " Commercial Lloyds." 

The first meeting of the " Commercial Lloyds " and the meet- 
ing when the merger was actually effected was June 7, 1892. At 
this meeting the original organizers resigned, and the former 
underwriters of the Metropolitan Lloyds elected as underwriters. 
Joseph W. Thompson and Charles M. Bellows were elected 
attorneys-in-fact. Each underwriter made a deposit of $1,000 
with the advisory committee. 

This association was actively engaged in the business of fire 
insurance on October 1, 1892, and their records show 185 fire 
policies issued before September 11, 1892. The association con- 
tinued actively engaged in business, writing many thousand 
dollars of risks until March 3, 1896, when the underwriters 
decided to reinsure the outstanding risks in the Pennsylvania 
Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The reinsurance was made 
and at the next meeting the records show but two policies in 
force. It was then decided to write one policy a week for the 
purpose of keeping the so-called charter in force. 

On November 17, 1896, the underwriters decided to resume 
active business and a fair volume of business was continued until 
December 22, 1897, when the outstanding risks, with the excep- 
tion of about a dozen policies, were reinsured with the Colonial 
Insurance Company. 

At a meeting held on March 29, 1898, the firm of Cox & 
Appleton, composed of James F. Cox and Herbert Appleton, 
were elected attorneys in place of Thompson and Bellows and 
there was a complete change of underwriters. An active business 
was then carried on until December 26, 1900, when all the out- 
standing risks, with the exception of twenty-two policies, were 
cancelled or reinsured. At a meeting held on October 7, 1902, 
James F. Cox and Herbert Appleton resigned as attorneys and 



72 Lloyds Report 

Harold Walker and Alfred L. Curtis were appointed in their 
place. The old underwriters resigned and new underwriters were 
elected. 

Pursuant to the provisions of section 57 of the insurance 
law, this association filed a copy of its articles of association in 
the insurance department on June 14, 1902. On December 31, 
1903, W. M. Barnum and Alfred L. Curtis were appointed 
attorneys in place of Walker and Curtis. 

On March 31, 1904, the underwriters resigned and were suc- 
ceeded by Edward Cluff, William C. Hubbell, C. H. Peckham, 
H. W. Eadie and F. H. Cluff. On April 5, 1904, Edward ClufT 
and William C. Hubbell were elected attorneys in place of 
Barnum and Curtis. 

At a meeting held May 10, 1904, the name of the association 
was changed to " Xew York Commercial Underwriters.'' 

On April 2, 1908, the firm of ClufT & Hubbell Inc., resigned 
as attorneys and were succeeded by Henry Stewart & Son In**., 
who had purchased the so-called charter. On the same date there 
was a general change in the underwriters. This association 
transacted but a very small amount of business from 1901, until 
April 2, 1908, keeping but a few policies in force as, ar-cordin<> 
to the advice of counsel, this had to be done in order to keep the 
so-called charter alive. 

Since April 2, 1908, the association has transacted a con- 
siderable volume of business and is now writing fire and ocean 
marine insurance. 

On June 6, 1909, the superintendent of insurance addressed a 
letter to the attorneys of this association, calling upon them :o 
immediately discontinue the issuance of automobile contracts, 
which the association had commenced to write in January, 1909. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this asso- 
ciation, each assuming a maximum liability of $10,000, are as 
follows : 

Name. Address. 

Herbert H. Beck Toronto. Canada. 

George W. Betts, Jr New York. 

August H. Bode, Jr f incinnati, O. 

W. P. Buckner New York. 

Alfred Burlev St. John?, N. B.. Canada. 

Norman R. Burrows Montreal, Canada. 



Is~ew York Commercial Underwriters 73 

Name. Address. 

Cyrus W. Chadwiek New York. 

John D. Chipman St. Stephen, N. B., Canada. 

Edward Cluff New York. 

L. G. Crosby St. Johns, N. B., Canada. 

Joseph Di Giorgio Baltimore, Md. 

Robert S. Ewing St. Johns, K. B., Canada. 

George H. Fleming St. Johns, N. B., Canada. 

J. E. Ganong St. Stephen, N. B., Canada. 

X. S. Gregory St. Johns, N. B., Canada. 

Walter A. Harrison St. Johns, N. B., Canada. 

Thomas N. Jones New York. 

Robert K. Kelley Liverpool, England. 

L. A. Burnett Aspinwall, Pa. 

Carl Kleve Cincinnati, O. 

Carl Kleve, Jr Cincinnati, O. 

Adolphe C. Knothe New York. 

E. G. Langley WolfvilJe, N. S., Canada. 

Thomas J. Lewis New York. 

William H. Logan Montreal, Canada. 

Alexander McMillan St. Johns, N. B., Canada. 

William A. Park New Castle, N. B., Canada. 

Alfred Porter St. Johns, N. B., Canada. 

James Robinson Millerton, N. B., Canada. 

William F. Robert Cincinnati, 0. 

Henrv Stewart New York. 

Cecif P. Stewart New York. 

Henry Stewart & Son New York. 

Louis W. Stotesbury New York. 

J. R. Thompson St. Johns, N. B., Canada. 

Percy W. Thompson St. Johns, N. B., Canada. 

Robert Thompson . .- St. Johns, N. B., Canada. 

Elliott E. Van Cluff New York. 

Frank S. White St. Johns, N. B.; Canada. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Cash in office $1, 563 68 

Cash in bank 40, 714 18 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 25, 488 06 

Bills receivable taken for premiums 3, 167 25 



Total assets $70, 933 17 



LIABILITIES 

Losses and claims for losses unadjusted $7, 193 45 

Unearned premiums : 

Fire $30, 362 61 

Marine 15, 264 21 

Total 45. 626 82 

Commissions and other charges due agents or brokers 6, 649 94 

Reinsurance premiums 532 50 



Total liabilities $60, 002 71 



74 Lloyds Kepokt 



NEW YORK INSURANCE ASSOCIATION 

Home Office, 19 Liberty Street, New York 
Attorneys-in-fact. Daniel Woodcock & Co. 



Date of organization April 11, 1892. 

Original underwriters . . . Fred H. Parson, William H. Broder- 

ick, George W. Holt. 

Original attorney-in-fact Fred H. Parson. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Four policies issued, three cf them to 

original underwriters. 

Sales of charter, change in name, etc. Insurers' Alliance, from April 11, 

1892. to February 24, 1903. 
Xew York Insurance Association, from 

February 24. 1903, to date. 
Charter sold in December. 1S93. to 
Daniel Woodcock. 

Articles of association, when filed with 

department August 23, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Not entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney -general and 

legal proceedings against, if anv . . Referred to attorney-general, Janu- 
ary 9. 1903. November 17 1903, 
April 8. 1908. November 27, 1908. 
and April 1, 19G9. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income, 1908 $29,169.85. 

Amount of insurance in forci Decem- 
ber 31, 190S $1,573,976. 

The first policy register of the association shows the issuance 
of policies of insurance for $1,000 each, under date of April ll r 

1892, to the following: Fred H. Parson, William H. Broderick, 
Edward Walker and George W. Holt. Xo other policies of in- 
surance were issued by this association until April 11, 1893, 
when the above mentioned policies were renewed. In December, 

1893, Daniel Woodcock purchased for a money consideration, the 
right of this association to transact business, from Fred H. 
Parson. 

Ernest J. Edgcomb in his report dated December 30, 1902 ? 
stated that this association was apparently one of thirty organized 



New York Insurance Association 75 

on the afternoon of April 11, 1892, by Messrs. Parson, Broderick 
and Holt. 

On December 11, 1893, the name was changed to New York 
Insurance Association. 

On November 17, 1903, the question of the right to do business 
on the ground of illegal organization was referred to the attorney- 
general with the request that he at once proceed, against the 
association to restrain it from the further transaction of business. 

On January 11, 1903, the superintendent of insurance re- 
quested the attorney-general to commence an action against this 
association to restrain it from transacting business, on the ground 
that it was illegally organized. " *i 

On February 21, 1903, the name was changed to New York 
Insurance Association. On April 3, 1908, the question of the 
right of this association to do business, on the ground that it was 
illegally organized, was referred to the attorney-general. An 
examination of the financial condition of this association under 
date of April 6, 1908, showed an impairment of $15,271.21. 

A requisition dated June 10, 1908, was served on this associa- 
tion to make good said impairment on or before September 11 ? 
1908. 

For the purpose of ascertaining whether this impairment had 
been made good, an examination was made as of September 21 ? 
1908, and showed an impairment of $6,408.29. 

Under date of November 27, 1908, these reports were referred 
to the attorney-general with the request that he take such action 
against the association as he deemed necessary. 

Examiners of this department called at the office of the asso- 
ciation on March 29, 1909, for the purpose of making an examina- 
tion of its affairs, acting under an appointment from the super- 
intendent of insurance. Daniel Woodcock, the attorney-in-fact, 
refused to allow the examiners to make such an examination. 

Under date of April 1, 1909, this report together with the 
previous reports on examination were referred" to the attorney- 
general, with the request that he take what action necessary to 
restrain this association from the further transaction of business. 



76 Lloyds Report 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this asso- 
ciation, each assuming a maximum liability of $2,500, are as 
follows : 

Name. Address. 

N. L. Hudson Pearl and Water streets, Brooklyn. 

Edmund T. Willets 47 Ann street, New York. 

J. Douglas Wells Chicago, 111. 

Lucien M. A. Girard 47 Ann street, New York. 

Walter F. Sykes 626 Second street, Brooklyn. 

George R. Weed 560 Second street, Brooklyn. 

A. J. Willets 33 Herkimer place, Brooklyn. 

William J. Bogert West-field, N. J. 

James A. Wylie 5 Beekman street, New York. 

Daniel Woodcock & Co. 19 Liberty street, New York. 

W. E. Jones 12 Walter street, Brooklyn. 

W. C. W. Child 1091 Dean street, Brooklyn. 

Daniel Woodcock 1219 Bergen street, Brooklyn. 

John B. Sabine 569 St. Mark's avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Assumes $5,000. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

LEDGER ASSETS 

Mortgage loans $800 00 

Collateral loans 537 50 

Cash in office and in bank 3, 507 26 

Agents' balances representing business written subsequent to 

October 1, 1908 10, 419 05 

Interest accrued 11 37 

Total assets ' , $15, 275 18 

LIABILITIES 
Losses and claims for losses: 

Unadjusted $1, 673 65 

Resisted 476 66 

Total unpaid losses and claims $2, 150 31 

Unearned premiums 11, 803 72 

Commissions and other charges due agents or brokers 1, 302 37 

Total liabilities $15, 256 40 

Note. — On March 29, 1909, the attorney of this association refus?d to allow examiners 
from this department to verify the correctness of above statement. 



E"ew York Fire Lloyds 77 



NEW YORK FIRE LLOYDS 

Home Office, 218 West Forty-seventh Street, New York 
Attorneys-in-fact, A. E. Cortis and J. W. Patterson 



Date of organization January 25, 1892. 

Original underwriters Hugh O'Neill, Max Danziger, L. W. 

Lawrence, J. Irving Burns, Andrew 
C. Fields, Frederick Loeser & Co., 
George Bruck, Cornelius N. Hoag- 
land, N. Cowen, Darwin R. James, 
Thomas T. Barr, Jordan, Marsh & 
Co., Henry Newman, Thomas Nel- 
son & Sons, Francis Hendricks. 

Original attorney-in-fact Elijah R. Kennedy. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Uncertain; records not available. 

Articles of association, when filed with 

the department August 18, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any . . None. Examiners, however, have been 

unable to obtain records of asso- 
ciation, and suit for accounting is 
pending between attorneys and 
underwriters. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income, 1908 Nothing. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $500. 

Ernest I. Edgcomb, in his report dated December 30, 1902, 
in regard to this association, stated as follows : 

" This organization evidently began issuing policies February, 
1892. The first policy, as appears by the policy register, was is- 
sued to Hugh O'ETeiii for $13,000 on February 13, 1892, the 
underwriters numbering thirteen and including well known busi- 
ness men in New York City. The first policy register exhibited 
to me shows that policies in considerable amounts were written 
regularly from that date down to and including May 21, 1S96, 
with one or more of the original underwriters still continuing to 
underwrite policies. L"p to the last date above mentioned the con- 
cern had issued apparently 851 policies of insurance. About the 



78 Lloyds Report 

said May 24, 1896, there seems to have been a complete change 
of underwriters. In May the underwriters were H. O'Neill, L. 
TV. Lawrence, C. F. Hoagland, Darwin R. James, Jordan, Marsh 
and Company, Thomas Xelson <fc Sons, Francis Hendricks, Lee 
Tweedey & Company, Hornthal, Weissman & Company. On June 
27th, on the first policy after the change of underwriters the 
following appear as insurers : John D. Miller, George H. Holmes, 
H. C. F. Koch, W. J. De Rivera, A. R, Hopkins, J. W. Patter- 
son, W. J. Howey, John R. Wood & Son, R. J. Curtis. About 
said date there was a change of attorneys from Messrs. Weed and 
Kennedy to Curtis Brothers. It is perfectly clear from the policy 
register in question that the underwriters of Xew York Fire 
Lloyds were actually transacting the business of insurance on the 
first day of October", 1892. 

" I asked for the later policy registers or other books of this or- 
ganization following the dates above referred to and although 
I had been promised all the books and records, I have so far been 
unable to obtain them." 

In 1896, J. W. Patterson, Alfred E. Cortis. Lap. R. Jones 
and William J. Howey were appointed attorneys in place of 
Elijah R. Kennedy. 

Later, powers of attorney were given to A. E. Cortis, William 
J. Howey and J. W. Patterson, who are the attorneys at the 
present time. 

On April 21, 1908, examiners from this department called at 
the office of J. W. Patterson, one of the attorneys for this asso- 
ciation, for the purpose of making an examination. Mr. Patter- 
son stated that the only records in his possession were those since 
May 19, 1905. 

For a period of five years from 1902 to 1907, Messrs. Patter- 
son and Howey seem to have been the active attorneys in charge 
of the business and severe losses seem to have been sustained. A 
suit is now pending, entitled " James W. Patterson and William 
J. Howey, plaintiffs, against John S. Woodruff, defendant," the 
plaintiffs endeavoring to collect from the defendant under his 
power of attorney. The defendant is demanding an accounting 
from the attorneys, but your examiner is informed that he has 
been unable to obtain the same or to secure the books and records, 
and also that said books and records are now in the State of New 
Jersev. 



New York Fire Lloyds 79 

This association has written but a few policies a year since 
1903. 

The annual statements made to the insurance department show 
the following financial statements: 

December 31, 1903. 

Assets • $16, 086 25 

Liabilities 108, 196 84 

December 31, 1904. 

Assets $13, 153 22 

Liabilities 78, 750 91 

December 31, 1905. 

Assets $855 38 

Liabilities 45, 105 95 

December 31, 1906. 

Assets $542 03 

Liabilities 19, 629 43 

December 31, 1907. 

Assets $491 26 

Liabilities 14, 305 70 



It is claimed that as the losses, of which most of the liabilities 
consist, occurred on policies issued prior to the time section 142 
of the insurance law took effect, that this association is not in- 
solvent under the insurance law. 

On January 29, 1908, W. J. Howey resigned as attorney-in- 
fact, and George Scott was appointed deputy attorney. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this associa- 
tion, each assuming the liability set opposite his respective name, 
are as follows : 

Name and Address Amount 

T. J. Merritt, Sr., 40 Wall street, New York city $2, 000 

H. W. Donty, 30 Broad street, New York city 2, 000 

I. J. Merritt, Jr., 40 Wall street, New York city 2, 000 

W. J. Howey, 218 W. Forty-seventh street, New York city. . . . 10,000 

Horace E. Fox, 105 West Sixty-fifth street, New York city 2, 000 

Charles H. Merrill, Exeter, N. H 2. 000 

George Holmes, 30 Broad street. New York city 2, 000 

George Reuter, Jr., 124 W. Eighty-first street. New York city. . 2,000 
Andrew R, Baird, cor. Hooper street and Wyeth avenue, 

Brooklyn 2 . 000 

J. W. Patterson, 218 West Forty-seventh street, New York 

city * 1 0. 000 

A. E. Cortis, 100 William street, New York city 10. 000 

F. G. Pauly, 189 Water street, New York city' 2. 000 



80 Lloyds Report 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department shows its financial condition on December 31 r 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 
Cash in bank $30 75 

LIABILITIES 

Losses and claims for losses unadjusted. . $969 02 

Reinsurance 502 31 

Net unpaid losses and claims $466 71 

Unearned premiums 2 50 

Salaries and miscellaneous expenses 7, 992 60 

Due and to become due for borrowed money 1 , 150 00 



Total liabilities $9, 611 81 



Xew York and Xew England Underwriters 81 



THE NEW YORK AND NEW ENGLAND UNDER- 
WRITERS AT LLOYDS OF NEW YORK CITY 

Home Office, 80 William Street, New York 
Attorney-in-fact, Richard J. Dunphy 



Date of organization April 12, 1892. 

Original underwriters William \\ arbrick, Townsend G. 

Baker. Berthold Frankel. 

Original attorney-in-fact William Warbrick. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Gross premium receipts, $17.50. 
Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. Home Protective Fire Underwriters, 

from April 12, 1892, to June 23, 
1902. 
New York and New England Under- 
writers, at Lloyds of New York 
city, from June 23, 1902, to date. 

License leased to In 1901. to J. W. Bremer, Charles 

Ring, John E. Fisk. Lease can- 
celled 1904. 
On March 21, 1905, to Richard J. 
Dunphy. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department August 11, 1902. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any . . Referred to attorney-general, January 

9, 1903 and June 7, 1909. 
On July 1, 1909, application made by 
the superintendent of insurance, 
the attorney-general representing 
him. to liquidate association under 
saction 63 of the insurance law. 
On March 20, 1909. petition in bank- 
ruptcy tiled against association. 
Judgments docketed in New York 
county against Bremer, Ring & 
Fisk, $5,00(1.95. 
Judgments docketed in New Y'ork 
county against Richard J. Dunphy 
et ah, $5,497.10. 

Edgcomb classification Not entitled to transact business. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income, 1908 $5,078.70. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $505,000. 

Mr. Edgeomb in his report dated December 30, 10O2, states 
that the minute book of the association shows the following 
entries : 



82 Lloyds Repcvrt 

First quarterly meeting July 20, 1892, no business transacted, 
^ext quarterly meeting October 19, 1892, attorneys reported 
premiums and risks, and a resolution was passed directing 
premiums to remain in the bands of the attorney. 

At a meeting held on January 18, 1893, tbere was a debate as 
to extending business with new underwriters, but " it was deemed 
expedient by the other subscribers, considering the depressed and 
unsettled condition of commercial affairs at this time, to rush the 
matter for that purpose, but it was resolved by the members 
present to continue the contracts of insurance now in force and 
await a more favorable outlook." Then they passed a resolution 
authorizing the attorney to reinsure all the underwriters' risks if 
he deemed it expedient. 

Meetings were held April 19, July 12 and October 18, 1893, 
January 17, April 18, July 18 and October 1, 1894, but at none 
of these meetings was any business transacted and no risks were 
reported as accepted or written. 

Meetings were held at intervals until November 30, 1896. On 
this date the total premiums reported since organization amounted 
to $29,016.50. 

" It is impossible to ascertain what, if any, business was trans- 
acted prior to October 1, 1892, as Mr. Frankel, one of the original 
organizers, stated that the old policy registers were lost. A report 
of Arthur S. Sherer, the commissioner appointed by the comptrol- 
ler of the State of ~New York to examine the books and papers of 
this Lloyds, which report is dated and filed on or about February 
8, 1896, in the office of the comptroller of the State of Xew York, 
shows i that the gross premium receipts of the Home Protective 
Fire Underwriters of Xew York on business done in this state 
were as follows: 

Date of alleged organization to June 30, 1892. . $17 50 

June 30, 1892; to June 30, 1893 00 00 

June 30, 1893 to June 30, 1891 00 00 

June 30, 1891 to June 30, 1895 00 00 ' " 

Mr. Edgcomb in his report states that many of the policies 
claimed to have been kept in force before 1897 ran to the under- 
writers themselves and that it appeared in a policy register that 
there were eleven outstanding policies in 1897, mainly to under- 



New York and Xew England Underwriters 83 

writers, two policies in 1898, one policy in 1899, two in 1900 and 
two in 1901, the policies of the last four years being simply re- 
newals. No losses were paid from 1897 to 1902. 

In 1901 the original owners of the so-called charter made an 
agreement to resign as underwriters and to lease the right to do 
business to J. W. Bremer, Charles Ring and John E. Eisk, and 
the business was conducted by them until 1901. Judgments to 
the amount of $5,006.95 are on file against the underwriters 
operating under this lease. 

On June 2,3, 1902, the name was changed to New York and 
New England Underwriters at Lloyds of New York city. Be- 
cause of the failure of the lessees to carry out their contract, it 
is claimed the so-called charter reverted to the original owners. 

On January 14, 1903, the superintendent of insurance re- 
quested the attorney-general to proceed against this association 
to restrain it from transacting business, on the ground of illegal 
crganization. 

Under date of March 21, 1905, the said owners or their repre- 
sentatives made another contract to lease the so-called charter to 
Richard J. Dunphy and his underwriters for the consideration of 
five per cent, of the gross premium income. Judgments are on 
file against these underwriters for $5,497.10. 

Examiners from this department endeavored to make an exami- 
nation as of March 15, 1909. This report in part states as 
follows : 

" In an interview with Richard J. Dunphy, attorney-in-fact of 
this association, he stated that Hugh Martin, the adjuster of the 
association, would represent him and referred us to Mr. Martin 
for such information as we should require to make this examina- 
tion. Mr. Martin informed us that this association did not keep 
a policy or cancellation register, cash book, ledger, loss book or any 
books of record whatsoever. The only evidences of business in 
force were the daily reports. * * Mr. Martin explained that* 
as soon as a policy expires or is cancelled, the daily report thereon 
is destroyed so that it is absolutely imposible to verify the correct- 
ness of the annual statement submitted to the department as of 
December 31, 1908." 

" We are informed by Mr. Dunphy that it has been his practice 
to keep the funds of this association deposited with his own per- 



84 Lloyds Report 

sonal bank account. He has a personal check book which he uses 
for both the association and himself and keeps no separate ac- 
counts of the moneys so expended." 

" The policy contract provides as follows : 'And no action or 
other legal proceeding for the recovery of any claim arising 
under this policy shall be brought in any court other than the Su- 
preme Court, County of ^N"ew York, State of ^ew York.' " 

" On March 29, 1-909, E. Pergoli, attorney, 71 Nassau street, 
New York city, filed with the insurance department, what pur- 
ports to be a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the underwriters 
of the ^ew York and New England Underwriters held March 29, 
1909. Erom these minutes it appears that Richard J. Dunphy 
was removed as attorney-in-fact of said association. * * * 
Should Mr. Dunphy not recognize the legality of this meeting, 
there is a possibility that both Mr. Pergoli '(who was elected at- 
torney at this meeting)' and Mr. Dunphy as attorneys-in-fact will 
issue policies under the name of The New York and New Eng- 
land Underwriters, with separate aggregations of underwriters, 
both claiming the right to transact business under the lease to 
Richard J. Dunphy." 

At a hearing on this report held on May 14, 1909, it was stated 
by Holmes Jones, as attorney, on behalf of Mr. Dunphy, that 
Mr. Dunphy would soon commence issuing policies with a new 
set of underwriters. 

On March 20, 1909, a petition in bankruptcy was filed against 
this association and on May 10, 1909, said petition was referred 
to a referee for trial. 

On July 1, 1909, an application was made by the superintendent 
of insurance, the attorney-general representing him, to liquidate 
the association under section 63 of the insurance law. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this associa- 
tion, each assuming a maximum liability of $2,500, are as 
follows : 



Name. Address. 

R. J. Dunphy 155 West 22d street. New York. 

J. B. Kearny 71 Nassau street, New York. 

James McBride 261 Broadway, New York. 

E. Pergoli 71 Nassau street, New York. 

Fred'k Murphv Philadelphia, Pa. 

W. S. Montieth Columbia, S. C. 

S. W. Keenan 201 Broadway, New York. 

P. M. Teresi 71 Nassau street, New York. 

John Burke 1123 Broadway, New York. 



ISew York and Xew England Underwriters 85 

A financial statement made from such information as it was 
possible to obtain as of March 15, 1909, is as follows: 

ASSETS 

Cash in office Nothing 

Cash in bank Not obtainable 

Uncollected premiums Not obtainable 

Other assets Nothing 

Total assets Nothing 

LIABILITIES 
Unpaid losses: 

Judgments against association: 

E. Delano Company, March 9, 1909 $1 , 248 58 

Charles E. Monroe,' February 6, 1907 1, 082 12 

August Kuthen, May 15, 1905 2, 543 90 

Luther H. Holten, January 2, 1907 215 07 

Harold Johnston, February 9, 1907 958 98 

Barnet Epstein and Barnet Margolis, January 31, 1908. . . 1, 168 50 

Maurice A. Rosenbaum and another, March 16, 1908 1, 086 75 

Harry Graf, June 12, 1908 1 , 050 47 

Miril Kaus, admx., June 24, 1908 474 40 

Harry Kriegman, December 16, 1908 468 40 



Total $10, 297 17 

Other losses, not obtainable. 
Unearned premiums : 

One year business 1, 328 44 



Total liabilities $1 1, 625 61 



Excess of liabilities over assets $11, 625 61 



86 



Lloyds Report 



SUBSCRIBERS AT UNITED STATES LLOYDS 

Home Office, 3 South William Street, New York 
Attorneys-in-fact, Higgins & Cox 



Date of organization . . 
Original underwriters 



November 3. 1866. 

John S. Williams, William H. Guion, 
Duncan, Sherman & Co., VY. Butler 
Duncan, W. Watts Sherman, Emil 
Heinemann, Francis Payson, James 
Brown, George H. Brown, John A. 
Brown, George S. Brown. William 
H. Graham, Babeock Bros. & Co., 
Samuel D. Babeock, Benjamin F. 
Babeock, John R. Gardner, Dabney, 
Morgan & Co., J. Pierpont Morgan, 
James J. Goodwin, James B. John- 
ston, Robert Colgate & Co., How- 
land & Aspinwall, William White- 
wright. Jr.. Henry Barbey & Co., 
Westray & Gibbes, Henry F. Spald- 
ing, George Bliss, L. P. Morton, 
Walter Hays Burns. John L. As- 
pinwall, Henry Eyre, F. Alexandre 
& Sons, F. Alexandre. Y\ illiams, 
Bee <fc Co., Thomas Galwev, Eugene 
Kelly. C. C. & H. M. Taber. Charles- 
C. Taber. Henrv M. Taber. William 
H. Smith & Son, James R. Smith, 
Brother Boninger. Spence & Reid, 
Lets & Waller. James Lees. Henry 
B. Laidlaw. Solon Humphreys, John 
T. Terry. M. K. Jesup & Co., D. G. 
Bacon. S. B. Chittenden. Charles. 
Lulin<J & Co.. Charles Lulins-, C. H. 
Marshall & Co.. W. H. Appleton, 
F. L. Brauns & Co.. A. Iselin & Co., 
Adrian Iselin, Thomas Eakin, Wet- 
more Crvder & Co.. Edmund Cor- 
lies, Olvphant & Co.. James T. San- 
ford. John D. Wood. D. H. Baldwin, 
Henry Brigham, Horace B. Claflin, 
Charles G. Francklyn, John Bates, 
William Fellowes. William H. Lee, 
James Low, Oliver Harriman, 
Joseph T. Low. L. Von Hoffman & 
Co., William T. Coleman, Baltzer 
& Taaks. W. G. Taaks. Riggs & Co., 
John Elliott. Erastus Corning, 
Samuel Thompson's Nephews, John 
W. Mason, Charles H. Blake, C. CL 



SUBSCKIBEKS AT UNITED STATES LLOYDS ST 

Original underwriters Baldwin, P. Adams Ames, Nicker- 

son & Co., R. R. Graves & Co., M. 
Morgan's Sons, F. Nickerson & Co., 
Glidden & Williams, John A. Burn- 
ham, Amos A. Lawrence, Martin 
Bates, Jr., & Co., Martin Bates, Jr., 
F. R. Fowler, F. W. Brune & Sons, 
William K. Hinman, William S. 
Tisdale, Edward G. Tinker. 

Original attorneys-in-fact Robinson & Cox. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Large volume of business. Gross in- 
come from 1873 to October 1, 1892, 
$16,(504,130.51. 

Articles of association, when filed with 

department May 1, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . None. 

Kind of insurance written Marine. 

Underwriters' deposit Original deposit, $100,000. Deposit, 

December 31, 1908, $655,758. 

Premium income, 1908, $1,185,168.81. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $22,118,226. 

This association commenced business under the management 
of Douglas Robinson and James F. Cox as attorneys, on Novem- 
ber 3, 1866, but did not complete the Articles of Agreement under 
which the subscribers did business under that management until 
December 27, 1867, on which date the Articles of Agreement 
were adopted. 

The association was organized with one hundred subscribers 
cr underwriters, each underwriter making a deposit of $1,000, 
making the total initial deposit $100,000. Each underwriter 
assumes 1-100 of the risk on every policy written by the attorneys. 
An advisory committee passes upon the financial standing and 
responsibility of each underwriter. Profits are divided among 
the underwriters once a year. The underwriters, under their 
power-of-attorney, assume an unlimited liability. 

In December, 1872, Mr. Robinson retired, so that the business 
under the management of Messrs. Robinson & Cox was liquidated 
as to that date, but the same business of individual underwriting 
was continued at the same office with the same name under the 
management of A. Foster Higgins and James F. Cox as attor- 
neys. For the prosecution of this business other Articles of 
Agreement were adopted December 16, 1872. On January 19, 
1888, Mr. John D. Barrett was appointed a third attorney in 



SS Lloyds Eepokt 

connection with Messrs. Higgins and Cox. Mr. Barrett retired 
as attorney on July 1, 1897, and Mr. Herbert Appleton was 
appointed. Mr. James F. Cox died, and on June 24, 1898, Mr. 
Douglas F. Cox was appointed attorney to act with Messrs. 
Appleton and Higgins, under the firm name of Higgins & Cox. 

From the time of its organization this association has been 
actively engaged in the business of marine insurance with oc- 
casional changes in subscribers. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this asso- 
ciation, each assuming an unlimited liability, are a3 follows: 

Name. Address. 

John Crosby Brown 59 Wall street. New York. 

Blake Brothers & Co . . . . 50 Exchange place, New York. 

E. T. Wilson & Co 33 Wall street, New York. 

R. T. Wilson 33 Wall street, New York. 

Horace Havemeyer 117 Wall street, New York. 

Eugene Kelly 5 Beekman street. New York. 

James L. Laidlaw 14 Wall street, New York. 

John T. Terry 100 Broadway, New York. 

John E. Berwind 1 Broadway. New York. 

A. Iselin & Co 36 Wall street, New York. 

Adrian Iselin, Jr 36 Wall street. New York. 

J. D. Barrett 49 Wall street. New York. 

H. H. Rogers 26 Broadway, New York. 

George C. Clarke 328 Broadway, New York. 

Edward H. Harriman 120 Broadway, New York. 

Howard P. Sweetser 25 Broad street, New York. 

P. A. S. Franklin 9 Broadway, New York. 

John Claflin 224 Church street, New York. 

Charles N, Lee 320 Broadway, New York. 

William Sloane 884 Broadway, New York. 

Thomas J. O'Donohue 101 Front street, New York. 

Joseph J. O'Donohue, Jr 101 Front street, New York. 

Joseph B. Thomas Savoy Hotel, Fifth avenue and Fifty- 
ninth street, New York. 

F. D. Mollenhauer 480 Kent avenue, Brooklyn. 

O. M. Mitchel 202 Produce Exchange, New York. 

Enos Wilder 27 William street. New York. 

Flint & Co 25 Broad street, New York. 

Edward C. Hoyt 26 Ferry street, New York. 

Warren G. Horton 26 Ferry street, New York. 

Lewis H. Lapham 26 Ferry street, New York. 

Lowell M. Palmer 149 Broadway, New York. 

Stephen Loines 49 Wall street, New York. 

William E. Iselin 1 Greene street, New York. 

William P. Clyde 19 State street, New York. 

H. A. Berwind Philadelphia, Pa. 

George A. Morrison 27 Beaver street, New York. 

G. Reusens 18 Broadway, New York. 

Edmund Trouton Fernhill, Kilgobbin, Dublin county, 

Ireland. 

Leaycraft & Co 129 Pearl street, New York. 

Adolph Norden Cotton Exchange, New York. 

Watjen, Toel & Co 6S Broad street, New York. 



Subscribers at United States Lloyds 89 

Name. Address. 

George W. Watjen 68 Broad street, New York. 

Louis Watjen 68 Broad street, New York. 

Henry R. Mailory 129 Front street, New York. 

Silas* D. Webb 32 Burling slip, New York. 

Charles W. Hogan Produce Exchange, New York. 

Jefferson Hogan Produce Exchange, "New York. 

George H. Ware 1 69 Chambers street, New York. 

Henry C. Tinker 139 Broadway, New York. 

A. Foster Higgins 100 Broadway, New York. 

J. P. Morgan^ & Co 23 Wall street, New York. 

J. Pierpont Morgan 23 Wall street, New York. 

George W. Perkins 23 Wall street, New York. 

G. S. Bowdoin 23 Wall street, New York. 

Levi P. Morton 38 Nassau street. New York. 

Walter P. Bliss 71 Broadway, New York. 

George B. Agnew 22 William street, New York. 

Richard J. Cross 71 Broadway, New York. 

George W. Crossman 77 Broad street, New York. 

Herman Sielcken 77 Broad street, New York. 

G. Amsinck & Co 6 Hanover street, New York. 

Seth M. Milliken 79 Leonard street, New York. 

Louis Miller Baltimore, Md. 

Woodward Baldwin & Co 43 Worth street, New York. 

Charles A. O'Donohue 8S Front street, New York. 

Stephen W. Carey 45 Broadway, New York. 

Philip Ruprecht 26 Broadway, New York. 

Samuel H. Dollard 194 Prospect place, Brooklyn. 

James H. Post 109 Wall street, New York. 

James B. Dickson 49 Wall street, New York. 

C. F. Ackerman 86 Pierrepont street, Brooklyn. 

James McCutcheon 14 West 23d street, New York. 

Charles F. Torrey Baltimore, Md. 

Henry F. Dimock 60 Wall street, New York. 

Herbert Appleton 16 Exchange place, New York. 

Burnham, Williams & Co . Philadelphia, Pa. 

John & James Dobson Philadelphia, Pa. 

W. J. McCahan Philadelphia, Pa. 

Alfred Winsor Boston, Mass. 

Nehemiah W. Rice Boston, Mass. 

Edward T. Bedford 26 Broadway, New York. 

Louis F. Swift Boston, Mass. 

B. N. Baker Baltimore, Md. 

Rufus Woods Baltimore, Md. 

Rufus Woods & Co Baltimore, Md. 

E. Levering & Co Baltimore, Md. 

Samuel J. Lanahan Baltimore, Md. 

Alex. J. Godby Baltimore, Md. 

William H. Dix Baltimore, Md. 

Charles C. Homer Baltimore, Md. 

Joshua Levering Baltimore, Md. 

F. W. Wilson & Son Baltimore, Md. 

Joseph R. Foard Baltimore. Md. 

Blanchard Randall Baltimore, Md. 

R. Brent Keyser Baltimore, Md. 

Waldo Newcomer Baltimore, Md. 

Edward H. Sanford Baltimore, Md. 

Douglas F. Cox 16 Exchange place, New York. 

S. T. Morgan Richmond, Va. 

C. S. Mathews 307 Carondolet street, New Orleans, 

La. 



90 Lloyds Report 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the in- 
surance department, shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Book value of bonds owned $645 , 300 00 

Cash in office and in bank 363, 136 50 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 354, 328 91 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing- business 

written prior to October 1, 1908 25, 304 22 

Interest due and accrued on bonds 7, 587 50 

Market value of bonds over book value 4, 650 00 

Gross assets $1, 400, 307 13 

DEDUCT ASSETS NOT ADMITTED 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written prior to October 1, 1908 25 , 304 22 

Total admitted assets $1. 375, 002 91 

LIABILITIES 

Losses and claims for losses: 

Unadjusted $557, 060 00 

Resisted 17, 250 00 

Total , $574,310 00 

Deduct reinsurance . 137, 300 43 

Net unpaid losses and claims $437, 009 57 

Unearned premiums: 

Inland navigation $247, 581 69 

Marine 249, 381 96 

Total 496, 963 65 

Salaries and miscellaneous expenses 16, 000 00 

Commissions, brokerage and other charges due agents and 

brokers . 55, 922 61 

Return premiums 15, 000 00 

Reinsurance premiums 177 , 032 28 

Total liabilities $1. 197, 928 11 



Uin t ion Underwriters or Xew York 91 



ITXIOX UNDERWRITERS OF XEW YORK 

Home Office, 45 Cedar Street, Xew York 
Attorneys-in-fact, Hall & Trowbridge 



Date of organization February 15, 1S76. 

Original underwriters Unknown. Advisory committee: J. 

M. Mundz, U. de Castro, 0. Spain- 
ochia. J. Fero. J. de la Espriella. 
Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Records not available. Probably a 

large marine business. 
Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. South and North American Lloyds, 

from February 15, 1876, to January 
16, 1!)06. 
The Union Underwriters of New York, 
from January 16, 1906, to date. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

department August 9, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Legality uncertain and doubtful. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any.. January 9, 1903. 

Kinds of insurance written Probably marine from February, 1876, 

to January 1, 1894. From January 
1, 1894, to date, fire insurance. 
Underwriters' deposit December 31, 

1908 $52,000. 

Premium income, 1908 $38,576.05. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31. 1908 $5,728,073. 

The present attorneys of this association were unable to show 
your examiner any records or books of any kind belonging to this 
association, prior to January 16, 1906, when they became attor- 
neys-in-fact. 

A copy of the minutes of what purports to be the first meeting 
of the underwriters of this association, filed in the insurance de- 
partment August 9, 1902, is as follows: 

"February 16, 1S76. 

At a meeting of the subscribers to the South and North Ameri- 
can Lloyds, held at the office of the association, Nos. 55 and 57 
Pine street, in the city of New York, Tuesday, February 15. 
1876, at 3 P. M., J. M. Mundz, D. De Castro and O. Spainochia; 
attended by Messrs. Whipple and de Bermingham, attorneys to 
said Lloyds. 



92 Lloyds Report 

J. M. Mundz was called to the chair and Henry de Berming- 
ham appointed secretary. 

On the meeting having been thus organized, the following and 
proposed printed articles of agreement were submitted by Messrs. 
Whipple and de Bermingham and after having been read by A. 
W. Whipple to the meeting, were unanimously adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Spainochia seconded by Mr. D. de Castro. 
it was unanimously 

Resolved, That the number of the advisory committee shall for 
the present be five, and that the word " five " be inserted in the 
said articles of agreement. Also that the persons composing for 
the present the said committee, shall be J. M. Mundz, D. de 
Castro, 0. Spainochia, J. Fero and J. de la Espriella, and that 
the names of those gentlemen be inserted in the said articles of 
agreement. 

The meeting then adjourned. 

IT. De Beemixgham. 

Secretary/' 

The following is an affidavit made by David F. Casey, on Au- 
gust 7, 1902: 

City axd County 
of New York, 

David F. Casey, being duly sworn, says, that he is a member 
of the firm of Boughan & Company, which is composed also of 
Ben xlustin Boughan. That deponent was a member of Whipple 
& Company. That the firm of Whipple & de Bermingham, men- 
tioned in the original articles of agreement, a true copy of which 
is hereto annexed, and made part hereof, continued until 1883, 
and was succeeded by Whipple & Company as attorneys for the 
South and North American Lloyds, which firm had contained the 
ssme members as the firm of Whipple & de Bermingham with the 
addition of David F. Casey, your deponent, and J. L. Parraga. 
The business of the Lloyds was conducted under the firm name of 
Whipple & Company as attorneys until 1896, when the under- 
writers cancelled their powers of attorney, as far as they referred 
to J. L. Parraga, and continued the business with power of attor- 
ney in your deponent, David F. Casey. 

David F. Casey and Ben Austin Boughan formed a co-partner- 
ship and the attorneys became Boughan & Company in 1902, and 
the words "Associated L T nderwriters at " were prefixed to " South 
and North American Lloyds." 



Union Underwriters of Ke,w York 93 

The South and North American Lloyds has been actively and 
continuously in business since February, 1876, the date of the 
.agreement, a copy of which is hereto annexed, having issued over 
38,000 policies of insurance, the premiums on the same being over 
$1,000,000, and having since that time paid over $800,000 in 
losses. The head or principal office is located at No. 19 Liberty 
street, New York city, Manhattan, Boughan & Company, at- 
torneys. 

In January, 1894, at the request of the then superintendent of 
insurance, full information as above was sent to the insurance 
department, which no doubt, is on file there, and must have been 
satisfactory as the right to do business was never questioned. 

This Lloyds has always done fire and marine business following 
the plan as at Lloyds in England as set forth in the articles of 
agreement, but is now almost exclusively doing fire business. 

David F. Casey. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me 

this 7th day of August, 1902. 
John V. Judge, 

Commissioner of Deeds, Neiv York City. 

Arthur L. Sherer, a commissioner, appointed by the state comp- 
troller, made a report on July 2, 1896, stating that the books of 
the association showed gross premiums on marine risks from Jan- 
uary 1880 to June 30, 1895, of $598,063.16, also " That the gross 
premium receipts from fire risks of the said South and North 
American Lloyds on business done in this state, from the com- 
mencement of the writing of fire risks on or about January 1, 
1894, to June 30, 1895, was one hundred and sixty-six thousand, 
seven hundred and eighty-eight and 17/100 dollars ($166,- 
788.17)." 

On July 12, 1895, Joseph L. Parraga, testified under oath be- 
fore Charles S. Wilbur, a commissioner, appointed by the state 
comptroller as follows: 

"A. I want to make a statement, the South and North Ameri- 
can Lloyds, up to the first of January, 1891, was composed wholly 
of insurance companies ; " 

Your examiner has been informed that this association trans- 
acted only a marine business from the date of organization until 
1894, and at this time first engaged in the business of fire insur- 



94 Lloyds Eepoet 

ance. The correctness of this information would seem to be borne 
out by the report of Mr. Sherer. 

Mr. Ernest I. Edgcomb in his report on Lloyds Associations, 
dated December 30, 1902, stated as follows in regard to this asso- 
ciation : 

" Organized in 1888, as South and Xorth American Lloyds. 
Words 'Associated Underwriters at ' prefixed in 1902. 

An examination of the records would indicate that the South 
and Xorth American Lloyds were unquestionably transacting a 
business of fire and marine insurance on the 1st of October, 1892. 
Prior to said date the underwriters had consisted not only of cer- 
tain individual underwriters composing the firm of Whipple & 
Co., but also of certain insurance companies who had assumed with 
them part of the risks of said association. 

There is no minute book of such association from 1884 to 1894, 
but the ordinary financial books of the concern indicate that a con- 
siderable volume of business was transacted on said date and down 
to July, 1896. 

At a meeting July 10, 1896, nothing was done. 

At a meeting July 7, 1897, all of the underwriters had ap- 
parently withdrawn except three, Messrs. Hurst, Casey and Een- 
lon. At said meeting the attorneys were authorized to continue 
several policies. 

On July 6, 1898, minutes of the meeting show that one policy 
was continued for three years to John T. Eenlon, one of the under- 
writers, insuring $500 on office furniture, premium $10. 

January 12, 1899, was the date of the next meeting. The three 
underwriters met and authorized attendance in court upon the suit 
of Xorthrop vs. South and North American Lloyds. 

Xo further meeting until June 6, 1900, when nothing was done 
except to authorize defense of appeal in same case. 

No further meetings until June 1, 1901, when nothing was done 
except to authorize the continuance or renewal of the policy to 
Eenlon for one year. 

July 10, 1901, authorized the issue of policy to Mr. Douglan 
for $250 on personal effects. 

From July, 1898 to July, 1901, the underwriters were engaged 
in liquidating some of the old losses on policies issued in 1896 
and 1897, and such losses were apparently paid and settled as late 
as March and April, 1902. 



Union Underwriters of Xew York 95 

Meeting March, 1902, authorized to resume general business 
with present attorneys Boughan k Co., as managers and attorneys, 
said attorneys reporting that three months' business to date 
amounted in premiums to $26,181.78. 

A loss book showed payment of losses on September 14, 1898, 
on old policies, and on February 5, 1902, by W. H. Hurst, who 
had been an individual underwriter from 1894 to the present 
time." 

On January 16, 1906, George A. Stanton, William L. Van 
Sinderen and E. E. Hall were appointed attorneys-in-fact. On 
the same date the name was changed to " The Union Underwrit- 
ers of Xew York." From this date the association has been ac- 
tively engaged in the transaction of fire insurance business. 

On February 13, 1908, W. L. Van Sinderen resigned as at- 
torney. 

George A. Stanton having died on February 17, 1908, E. E. 
Hall and Charles A. Trowbridge were appointed attorneys on Feb- 
ruary 18, 1908. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this association, 
each assuming a maximum liability of $10,000, are as follows: 

Name. Address. 

Fred'k B. Fiske New York. 

Fraser M. Moffat New York. 

Edwin Packard New York. 

Harvey Childs, Jr Pittsburg, Pa. 

William Littauer New York. 

Eugene S. Pike Chicago, 111. 

Harry Louderbough Jersey City, N. J. 

George C. Clarke New York. 

John S. Sutphen New York. 

James H. Childs Pittsburg, Pa. 

Stephen S. Palmer New York. 

Gustav Levor New York. 

Edmund N. Huyck Albany, N. Y. 

Chas. A. Trowbridge. . New York. 

James M. Thompson Hartford, Conn. 

William Henry Hotchkiss Buffalo, N. Y. 

Albert H. Childs Pittsburg, Pa. 

Chas J. Follmer New York. 

David S. Walton New York. 

Thomas Dimond New York. 

Felix Fuld Newark. N. J. 

Edward E. Bruce Omaha, Neb. 

T. Howe Childs Pittsburg, Pa. 

H. J. O'Brien Chicago, 111. 

John S. Sutphen New York. 

Sereno P. Fenn Cleveland, O. 



D6 Lloyds Report 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the insur- 
ance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Book value of bonds owned $55, 445 00 

€ash in bank 47, 099 06 

•Gross premiums in course of collection, representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 6, 498 23 

Interest due and accrued on bonds 795 84 

Gross assets $109, 838 13 

DEDUCT ASSETS NOT ADMITTED 

Book value of bonds over market value 195 00 

Total admitted assets $109, 643 13 

LIABILITIES 

Losses and claims for losses unadjusted $7, 606 76 

Unearned premiums 20, 864 98 

Commissions and other charges due agents or brokers 1,624 56 

Beturn premiums 689 53 

Beinsurance premiums 73 88 

Total liabilities $30, 859 71 



TINDER WRITERS AT AMERICAN LeOYDS 97 



UNDERWKITEKS AT AMERICAN LLOYDS 

Home Office, 45 Cedar Street, New York 
Attorneys-in-fact, Hall & Trowbridge 



Date of organization April 15, 1890. 

Original underwriters John Gibb, Howard Gibb, George C. 

Clark, F. Griswold Tefft, David S. 
Walton, D. 0. Cunningham, August 
Roesler, F. X. Radley, W. T. 
Evans, John R. Waters, L. H. Wise, 
E. H. Wise, C. J. Follmer, G. A. 
Stanton, E. Lange, C. 0. Howard, 
A. J. Armstrong, George S. Harris, 
Walter Callender, J. E. Troup. 

Original attorneys-in-fact ". Edward C. Anderson, George A. Stan- 
ton. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Amount of insurance in force Septem- 
ber 29, 1902, $6,514,024. 

Articles of association, when filed with 

department August 2, 1902. 

.Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any.. None. 

Kind of insurance written Fire and sprinkler leakage. 

"Underwriters' deposit December 31, 

1908 $108,000. 

Premium income, 1908 $284,350.23. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $38,136,279. 

The first regular meeting of the association was held on April 
28, 1890, and an advisory committee elected. 

Each underwriter was then and is now required to deposit 
$2,000 with the advisory committee, which deposit is equal to the 
amout which the underwriter authorizes the attorney to under- 
write on any one risk, and if this deposit should become impaired 
the underwriter agrees to immediately make it good. The original 
power of attorney given by the underwriters provides in part as 
follows : 

" The advisory committee shall before causing my account for 
any fiscal year to be closed pay to me as and in lieu of interest, 
the equivalent of six per cent, per annum on the balance which 
existed to mv credit at the beo-innino; of said fiscal year, if this 



98 Lloyds Report 

can be done without impairing my deposit of $2,000. The ad- 
visory committee shall also determine what further profits (if 
any) shall be paid to me at the close of any fiscal year. Each 
fiscal year shall terminate and close at the end of the month of 
April " also 

" If at any time, the amount to our credit shall exceed $2,000' 
(not counting the deposit hereinbefore provided for) all such ex- 
cess can be withdrawn by us on the first day of May in any year 
by application in writing to the advisory committee." 

The latter provision was amended April 10, 1893, and now pro- 
vides as follows: 

" The advisory committee shall also determine what further 
profit (if any) shall be paid to me at the close of any fiscal year." 

During May, 1890, the premium receipts amounted to $4,- 
302.53. An audit of the books of the association as of April 30, 
1891, showed: Total receipts $116,428.79. Total disbursements 
$25,611.11. In September, 1891, the number of underwriters was 
increased to forty-five. The amount of insurance in force on Sep- 
tember 29, 3 902, was $6,514,021. On September 29, 1892, the 
advisory committee held its sixty-seventh meeting. 

This association has been actively engaged in the business of 
fire insurance from the date of its organization and is now trans- 
acting a large volume of business. 

Since May, 1897, this association has been writing sprinkler 
leakage policies. 

On December 15, 1891, George A. Stanton was appointed at- 
torney-in-fact in place of Anderson & Stanton. 

Mr. George A. Stanton having died on February 17, 1908, at 
a meeting held on February 18, 1908, Edward E. Hall and 
Charles A. Trowbridge were appointed attorneys-in-fact. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this association,, 
each assuming a maximum liability of $10,000, are as follows : 

Name. Address. 

William T. Evans, of Mills & Gibb. Incorporated New York. 

George C. Clarke." president of Tefft Weller Co New York. 

Stephen S. Palmer, president New York Zinc Co New York. 

David S. Walton, of D. S. Walton & Co New York. 

John N. Beach, vice-president of Tefft Weller Co New York. 

William Wicke, president of the Wm. Wicke Co New York. 

Andrew B. Wallace, of Forbes & Wallace Springfield, Mass. 

Walter Callender, of Callender, McAnslan & Troup Co. .Providence, R. I. 
Samuel W. Woodward, of Woodward & Lathrop Washington, D. C 



Undekwkiters at American Lloyds 99 

Name. Address. 

Charles J, Follmer, of Follmer, Clogg & Co., Incorpo- 
rated New York. 

W. W. Lawrence Pittsburg, Pa. 

W. J. Stitt New York. 

Charles D. Armstrong 

Dominick 0. Cunningham, president of the D. 0. Cun- 
ningham Glass Co Pittsburg, Pa. 

William E. Lowe, of Johnson & Higgins New York. 

Arthur Gibb, of F. Loeser & Co Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Harvey Childs, Jr., of H. Childs & Co Pittsburg, Pa. 

John Claflin, president of the H. B. Claflin Co New York. 

Lucius N. Littauer. of Littauer Bros New York. 

L. Laflin Kellogg, of Kellogg & Rose New York. 

James G. Johnson, of James G. Johnson & Co New York. 

Charles M. Allen, treasurer of Tefft Weller Co New York. 

George H. Wicke, treasurer of Wm. Wicke Co New York. 

William P. Aldrich, of the Worthen & Aldrich Co New York. 

Henry A. Sherwin, president of The Sherwin-Williams 

Co.* Cleveland, 0. 

T. Howe Childs, second vice-president Colonial Steel Co. Pittsburg, Pa. 

Jacob Amos Syracuse. N. Y. 

Henry Buhl, Jr., of Boggs & Buhl, a corporation Allegheny City, Pa. 

Eugene S. Pike Chicago, 111. 

Cornelius B. Ramsey, formerly treasurer National Bis- 
cuit Co Pittsburg, Pa. 

The mas Dimond ■ New York. 

E. V. Connett, Jr., of E. V. Connett & Co New York. 

A. M. Cooper, vice-president Howland Dry Goods Co. . .Bridgeport, Conn. 

E. H. Weatherbee New York. 

Peter Reid Passaic, N. J. 

EdAvard E. Bruce, of E. E. Bruce & Co., Incorporated . . Omaha, Neb. 

Albro J. Newton, president of the Albro J. Newton Co. . Brooklyn, N. Y. 

William H. Butler, president LTniversal Tobacco Co . . . v TSTew York. 

W. H. Lipe New York. 

Henry A. Sherwin Cleveland, 0. 

Herbert R. Clarke, formerly of Tefft Weller Co New York. 

Felix Fuld, of L. Bamberger & Co Newark, N. J. 

G. Rensens New York. 

J. E. Brown Boston, Mass. 

Louis Stewart New York. 

Samuel Sloan, Jr New York. 

J. D. Larkin Buffalo, N. Y. 

L. L. Kellogg New York. 

John S. Sutphen New York. 

Henrv A. Caesar New York. 

E. E" Hall New York. 

Chas. F. Miller Lancaster, Pa. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the insur- 
ance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Collateral loans $20, 000 00 

Book value of bonds owned S69, 759 25 

Cash in bank 40, 973 27 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 58. 226 40 

Interest due and accrued on bonds 6. 250 00 

Gross assets $1, 001, 20S 9? 



100 Lloyds Repoet 

deduct assets not admitted 

Book value of bonds over market value $83, 259 25 

Total admitted assets $917, 949 67 



LIABILITIES 

Losses and claims for losses unadjusted $25. 914 24 

Unearned premiums 159, 628 03 

Commissions and other charges due agents or brokers 14, 556 60 

Return premiums 3. 424 28 

Reinsurance premiums 1 , 367 80 

Contingent reserve 100, 000 00 

Total liabilities : . $304, 890 95 



Underwriters at Great Western Lloyds 101 



UXDEKWRITEKS AT GREAT WESTERN LLOYDS 

Home Office, 45 Cedar Street, New York 
Attorneys-in-fact, Hall & Trowbridge 



Date of organization September 30, 1902. 

Original underwriters George A. Stanton, William L, Van 

Sinderen, Edward E. Hall, H. H. 
Ebbetts, Carl A. Brewson. 

Original attorneys-in-fact George A. Stanton and William L. 

Van Sinderen. 
Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Two policies issued. Premium re- 
ceipts, $4. 
Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. International Llovds, from September 

30, 1892, to March 30, 1894. 
Underwriters at Great Western Lloyds 
from March 30, 1894, to date. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department August 2, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Not entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if anv . . Referred to attorney-general, January 

9, 1903. 

Kind of insurance written .Kire. 

Underwriters' deposit, December 31, 

1908 $88,000. 

Premium income, 1908 $65,513.37. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $10,092,439. 

The first meeting of the association was held September 30, 
1892, and a resolution was passed adopting a form of policy and 
power of attorney. Mr. Hall was elected treasurer and each of 
the underwriters paid over to the treasurer, as a deposit, a check 
for $2,000. Immediately thereafter the following resolution was 
passed • 

" In view of a conflict of opinion of eminent counsel as to the 
date at which the fifty-seventh section of the revised insurance 
code went into effect, moved and seconded that two policies should 
he issued upon applications received, and that no further con- 
tracts, except the renewal of these policies, should be made until 
legal test should be made by the courts or by special process of 
law of the state, defining in specific terms the exact date after 
which no further Lloyds organizations should be organized." 



102 Lloyds Eeport 

At this meeting Messrs. Stanton and Van Sinderen were ap- 
pointed attorneys-in-fact. 

The next meeting of the association was held on October 7, 
1892, at which the only business transacted apparently was the 
adoption of by-laws. 

The minute book does not show any record of further meetings 
until March 30, 1894, when the name of the association was 
changed to the " Underwriters at Great Western Lloyds." At a 
meeting held on October 21, 1894, it was reported that the prem- 
iums received to date were $8,563.07. Since this date this associa- 
tion has continuously transacted a large business. 

At a hearing held before 'Charles S. Wilbur, a commissioner 
appointed by the state comptroller, George A. Stanton, an attorney 
for the association, testified under oath on July 12, 1895, as 
follows : 

" Q. In the matter of the Great Western Lloyds, when was that 
company organized? A. September 30, 1892. 

Q. What were the gross premiums received for the year ending 
June 30, 1893 ? A. $4. 

Q. June 1904? A. $2. 

Mr. Ernest I. Edgcomb, in his report dated December 30, 1902, 
made the following statement regarding this association. 

" There was produced the bank pass book of the trustees of the 
underwriters of Great Western Lloyds with the New York Life 
Insurance and Trust Company. The entries in this pass book in- 
dicated that no cash was deposited to the credit of such underwrit- 
ers in said trust company until August 14, 1894. At the begin- 
ning of said pass book appear the following entries : 

Deposits, cash, August 14, 1894 $40,000 00 

August 14, 1894 8,000 00 

October 12, 1S94 3,603 16 

November 9, 1894 8,346 84 

On credit side : 

Cash withdrawn, August 15, 1894 $8,000 00 

' October 17, 1894 740 18 

October 27, 1894 4 08 



UNDERWRITERS AT GREAT WESTERN LlOYDS 103 

Mr. E. E. Hall, the treasurer, appointed at the first meeting, 
when asked about the apparent conflict between the bank pass book 
and the minutes of the meeting of September 30, 1892, stated that 
the checks for the $10,000 stated to have been deposited by the 
original fire underwriters were evidently not collected, but were 
held by him until paid into the bank on August 14, 1894, as shown 
by the pass book. Mr. Hall stated as a reason for not collecting 
and holding this sum on deposit, was that during these first two 
years liabilities were small or nominal. Cash ledger " A " was 
produced and showed the following entries and receipts: 

September 30, 1892. Deposits of underwriters. $10,000' 00 

Premiums received, policy !No. 1/ Charles A, 
Trowbridge, Jr., household furniture, East 

Orange 2 00 

mium returned 10 

H. N\ Brinsinade, policy ~No. 2, household furni- 
ture in residence, New York 2, 00 

(It was stated to the examiners that Mr. Charles A. Trow- 
bridge, Jr., was an employee of Messrs. Stanton & Van Sinderen, 
and that Mr. Brinsinade was a brother-in-law of Mr. Van Sind- 
eren.) 

The next cash register is October 1, 1893 : 

Brinsinade policy renewed, policy "No. 3 $2 00 

Aug. 8, 1894, policy ~No. 3, cancelled and pre- 
mium returned 10 

Aug. 14, 1894, nineteen more underwriters paid. 18,000 00 



and thereafter the cash book shows substantial cash receipts from 
premiums. 

The attorneys for the Lloyds also exhibited the original cancel- 
lation register, which shows the following entries : 

Aug., 1894, policy 'No. 3, H. K Brinsinade, Sept, 30, 
1893, to Sept. 30, 1894, $1,000 on household furni- 
ture, at 2 per cent, premium $2 00 

Return premium 10 



There was also produced the first policy register of the Great 
Western Lloyds. Only two pages are used, and on these pages ap- 
pear entries of the three policies above set forth, * * " The 
cash journal was also produced, from which cash ledger 'A' was 
posted. This journal stated that up to August 14, 1894, $10,000 



104 Lloyds Report 

cash was deposited in the Trust Company, but the pass book of 
the Trust Company shows no such deposit. * * * 

A summary of the business of the first two years of the Great 
Western Lloyds is as follows: 

Cash results first year, September 30, 1892, to September 30, 
1893. 

Receipts, premiums $4 00 

Disbursements, commissions . 80 

Net profits $3 20 

Net cash results of year September 30, 1893 to September 30, 
1894: 

Receipts, one premium $2 00 

Disbursements for commission 40 

For return premium 10 

50 

$1 50 

There is no question whatsoever but that after August, 1894, 
the Great Western Lloyds has done a large and active business." 

On May 25, 1909, this portion of the Edgcomb report was sub- 
mitted to Mr. E. E. Hall, one of the present attorneys-in-fact of 
this association, and he informed your examiner that he under- 
stood this statement to be correct. 

Under date of January 9, 1903, the superintendent of insur- 
ance requested the attorney-general to commence an action against 
this association to restrain it from transacting business. 

On February 13, 1908, William Van Sinderen resigned as at- 
torney-in-fact. 

Mr. George A. Stanton having died on February 17, 1908, at a 
meeting held on February 18, 1908, E. E. Hall and Charles A. 
Trowbridge were appointed attorneys. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters 'of this associa- 
tion, each assuming a maximum liability of $10,000 are as 
follows : 

Name. Address. 

George C. Clarke, president Tefft Weller Co New York. 

David S. Walton, of D. S. Walton & Co Xew York. 

Stephen S. Palmer, president New Jersey Zinc Co.... New York. 

John X. Beach, vice-president of Tefft Weller Co Xew York. 



UNDERWRITERS AT GREAT WESTERN LlOYDS 105 

Name. Address. 

Cornelius E. Rumsey. formerly treasurer National Bis- 
cuit Co \ Pittsburg, Pa. 

William Wicke, president William Wicke Co New York. 

Albro J. Newton, president Albro J. Newton Co Brooklyn, N. Y. 

T. Howe Childs, second vice-president Colonial Steel Co. Pittsburg, Pa. 

Henry A. Sherwin, president The Sherwin-Williams Co . Cleveland, Ohio. 

Eugene S. Pike Chicago, 111. 

John Claflin, president H. B. Claflin Co New York. 

William E. Lowe, of Johnson & Higgins New York. 

Thomas Dimond New York. 

William T. Evans, of Mills & Gibb, Incorporated New York. 

Charles J. Follmer, of Follmer, Clogg & Co., Incorpo- 
rated New York. 

L. Laliin Kellogo-. of Kellogg & Rose New York. 

Harvev Childs, Jr.. of H. Childs & Co Pittsburg, Pa. 

Arthur Gibb, of F. Loeser & Co Brooklyn, N. Y. 

August Hecksher, general manager New Jersey Zinc Co New York. 

Jacob Amos Syracuse, N. Y. 

Sereno P. Fenn Cleveland, Ohio. 

Albert H. Childs Pittsburg, Pa. 

Felix Fuld Newark, N. J. 

William L. Moffat Elizabeth, N. J. 

John D. Larkin Buffalo, N. Y. 

Louis Stewart . New York. 

E. E. Hall New York. 

Harry J. O'Brien Chicago, 111. 

John S. Sutphen New York. 

Chas. F. Miller Lancaster, Pa. 

E. V. Connett, Jr New York. 

George V. Coe New York. 

Chas. D. Rood Lancaster, Pa. 

John Claflin New York. 

Henry G. Gennett New York. 

Samuel Sloan New York. 

Edgar Palmer New York. 

A. M. Cooper Bridgeport, Conn. 

E. A. Richard New York. 

H. McC. Bangs New York. 

Leo H. Wise New York. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the insur- 
ance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Book value of bonds owned $228, 892 50 

Cash in bank 29, 028 81 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 T 16. 563 19 

Interest due and accrued on bonds 2. 377 50 

Gross assets $276, 862 00 

DEDUCT ASSETS NOT ADMITTED 
Book value of bonds over market value 16, 672 50 

Total admitted assets $260, 189 50 



106 Lloyds Report 



LIABILITIES 



Losses and claims for losses unadjusted $12,404 71 

Unearned premiums 35, 961 86 

Commissions and other charges due agents or brokers 4, 140 79" 

Return premiums 1, 358 17 

Reinsurance premiums 610 87 



Total liabilities , $54, 476 40 



UNDERWRITERS AT N. I". AND BOSTON LLOYDS 107 



UNDERWRITERS AT NEW YORK AKD BOSTON 
LLOYDS 

Home Office, 1 Liberty Street, New York 
Attorneys-in-fact, Willard S. Brown & Co. 



Date of organization April 25, 1892. 

Original underwriters John M. Hayward, Ignatz Boskowitz, 

Francis C. Devlin, Fernando Baltes, 
John G. Prague. 

Original attorneys-in-fact William H. Kelly and Henry D. 

Fuller. 
Business done prior to October 1,1892. Three policies issued; premium in- 
come, $58.75. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department August 15, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . None. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit, December 31, 

1908 $40,000. 

Premium income, 1908 $24,388.66. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $3,344,160. 

Each of the original underwriters assumed a liability of $1,000 
on the first policies issued. 

The original policy register shows the issuance of the following 
policies : 

1892 

April 26, Thomson-Houston Electric Company of ~N. Y. 

$5,000, one year, premium $50 00 

April 30, James Devlin, contents of dwelling, $1,500, 

three years, premium . ., 3 75 

August 31, Edward P. Hogan on contents of dwelling 

$1,000 two years, premium 5 00 

December 30, Mrs. James Devlin, on brick dwelling, 

$3,000, three years, premium 9 00 



108 Lloyds Report 

1893 

April 20, Edmund Burke, $500, one year, premium. ... 2 00 

April 20, Henry Burke, $500, one year, premium. ... 2 00 

April 20, Willard S. Brown, $1,000, one year, premium. 2 00 

April 26, Thomson-Houston Electric Company, $5,000, 

one year, premium 50 00 

The association has in its possession an affidavit made by Peter 
Butterly, Treasurer of the Thomson-Houston Electric Company, 
executed May 22, 1897, stating that a fire policy was issued to 
that company on April 26, 1892. 

Beginning March 1894 to date, this association has been ac- 
tively engaged in business, issuing a large number of policies in 
each year. 

On March 6, 1893, Francis P. Burke and Willard S. Brown 
were appointed attorneys-in-fact in place of Messrs. Kelly and 
Fuller. On or about this date the following were elected under- 
writers : 

C. A. Coffin, Vernon H. Brown, R. T. McDonald, Edward J. 
Berwind, Leander 1ST. Lovell, S. Dana Greene, Burke & Brown, 
William H. Kelly, Eberhard Faber, Richard V. Harnett, W. H. 
Starbuck, James G. Johnson, J. H. Beech, W. R. Grace, John A. 
McCall, John Claflin, F. S. Hastings, C. H. Mallory & Co., 
Brown, Durrell & Co., J. W. Johnson, Donald Mitchell, John J. 
Mitchell, Addison Cammack, Fitzsimmons Hardware Co., George 
E. Leighton, Dodge Haley & Co., A. H. Alker, R. C. Rathbone, 
R. W. Cameron & Co., George H. Lincoln, Henry P. Booth, John 
H. Flagler, C. B. Thurston, A. O. Wilcox & Son, Charles A. Green, 
C, F. Howey & Co., William G. Weld, C. A. Furbush, John Dob- 
son, James Dobson, Lesher, Whitman & Co., Jordan, Marsh & Co. 

All of the original organizers seem to have resigned before Au- 
gust 26, 1893. The only changes in underwriters from March 6, 
1893, to date, seem to be only the usual natural changes caused by 
death and business reasons. 

Xo minute book was kept before January 1, IS 91. but since 
that date regular meetings have been held. 

There were shown to your examiner letters dated in July and 
August 1892, written to and received from numerous large con- 
cerns, in regard to doin^ the business of insurance on a large scale. 



Undeewkiteks at N. Y. and Boston Lloyds 109 

The association has in its possession a letter written by Michael 
Shannon, a former deputy superintendent of insurance, which 
reads as follows: 

JSTew Yoek, April 19, 1893. 
Messrs. Francis P. Burke and Willaed S. Brown: 

Gentlemen. — In accordance with your request I have exam- 
ined the documents in possession of W. H. Kelly, relating to the 
transaction of the business of fire insurance at the " JSTew York 
and Boston Lloyds." 

I find that under date of April 26, 1892, Wm. H. Kelly and 
Henry D. Fuller were duly appointed attorneys-in-fact for John 
N". Hayward, Ignatz Boskowitz, Francis C. Devlin, Fernando 
Baltes and John G. Prague to transact in their names the business 
of insurance as particularly described and set forth in the printed 
form annexed hereto marked " Exhibit A" each page of which is 
marked with my initials for identification. 

I also find that, pursuant to authority so vested in them as at- 
torneys-in-fact for the persons above named, the said William H. 
Kelly and Henry D. Fuller as such attorneys-in-fact did issue to 
the Thomson-Houston Electric Company of New York a policy 
of insurance dated April 26, 1892, insuring said company against 
loss or damage by fire to the amount of $5,000, " on contents and 
all property belonging to said electric company in the station Nos. 
425 to 431 East 24th street " a copy of said policy of insurance 
being annexed hereto marked " Exhibit B " and marked with my 
initials for identification. 

I have also obtained from Judge Kelly an affidavit annexed 
hereto marked " Exhibit C " in confirmation of the facts herein 
stated. » 

From the papers presented to me as above described, and the 
high character of Judge Kelly, I believe that the business of fire 
insurance was transacted at the office of the New York and Boston 
Lloyds on April 26, 1892, by and through the persons named 
above. 

Very respectfully, 

(Signed) Michael Shannon. 

In 1897 the association reinsured most of its outstanding risks 
in the Northern Insurance Company. 

Francis P. Burke, one of the attorneys-in-fact, died iv July, 
1903, and from that date until July 1, 1905, Willard S. Brown, 
acted as sole attorney. On July 1, 1905, James Mar^qll was 



110 Lloyds Report 

appointed joint attorney-in-fact with Willi ard S. Brown, under the 
firm name of Willard S. Brown & Co. 

The association endeavors to have twenty underwriters at all 
times, each making a deposit of $2,000, and assuming an addi- 
tional liability of $8,000. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this associa- 
tion, each assuming a maximum liability of $10,000, are as 
follows : 

Name. Address. 

Vernon H. Brown 29 Broadway, New York. 

William Brewster Broadway and Forty-seventh street, 

New York. 

A. A. Fowler ill Broadway, New York. 

Charles Eddy Fourth avenue and Ninth street, New 

York. 

A. H. Alker 30 Broad street, New York. 

Howard Willets White Plains, N. Y. 

Charles Mallory Greenwich, Conn. 

Horace Howard Furness Wal lino-ford, Pa. 

Henry P. Booth 00 Wail street. New York. 

Henry P. Booth, account No. 2 90 Wall street, New York. 

35vans P. Dick 30 Broad street. New York. 

John J. Slater 47 West Fifty-fifth street, New York. 

Willard iS. Brown 1 Liberty street, New York. 

Robert H. Fowler Ill Broadway, New York. 

Donald Mitchell 302 West Fifty-third street, New 

York. 

Nathaniel Whitman 670-674 Broadway, New York. 

Willard S. Brown & Co 1 Liberty street, New York. 

A. A. Fowler & Co Ill Broadway, New York. 

Leander N. Lovell 17 Battery place, New York. 

John E. Berwind 1 Broadway, New York. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the insur- 
ance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 



Book value of bonds and stocks owned $88, 410 00 

Cash in bank 2, 507 65 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1. 1908 6, 112 28 

Market value of bonds and stocks over book value 9, 501 00 



Total assets $106. 530 93 



LIABILITIES 

Losses and claims for losses unadjusted $11 , 140 32 

Reinsurance 2. 250 00 



Net unpaid losses and claims $8, 890 32 

Unearned premiums 13, 281 08 

Commissions and other charges due agents or brokers 1, 833 63 

Reinsurance premiums 2, 183 SO 

Total liabilities $26, 189 73 



Usion" Underwriters 111 



inSTON UNDEKWRITERS 

Home Office, 56 Pine Street, New York 
Attorney-in-fact, Charles L. McManus 



Date of organization March 12, 1892. 

Original underwriters C. Douglas Lord, Augustus G. Fisher, 

John L. Mason. 

Original attorney-in-fact C. Douglas Lord. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. One fire insurance policy issued. Pre- 
mium, $4. 

Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. Guardian Fire Lloyds, from March 12, 

1892, to September 28, 1895. 
Waldorf Fire Lloyds, from September 

28, 1895, to December 3, 1900. 
Fire Association of New York, from 
December 3, 1900, to November 22, 
1902. 
Union Underwriters, from November 
22, 1902, to date. 

Articles of association, when filed with 

the department August 26, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Not entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . Referred to attorney-general, January 

9, 1903, and February 17, 1904. 
Records show action brought against 
an underwriter of association by at- 
torney-general in 1896 and action 
discontinued in 1901. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit Nothing. 

Premium income, 1908 $11. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $2,750. 

There is no regular minute book in the possession of the asso- 
ciation, but from the records of the meetings as kept separately, 
it appears that the first meeting was held on March 7, 1892. The 
next meeting was held on March 12, 1892, and no other meeting 
appears to have been held until September 28, 1895. At this 
meeting the original organizers resigned and transferred their 
franchise to about twenty-four underwriters who were elected at 
the same meeting. C. Douglass Lord resigned as attorney and 
was succeeded by C. W. Peasley. The first policy issued was to 



112 Lloyds Kepokt 

William Muir, dated March 12, 1892, for a term of three years, 
premium of $4. Policy No. 2 was a renewal on March 12, 1895, 
of the first policy, for one year, premium of $2. No other policies- 
of insurance were issued between those dates. The association has 
in its possession affidavits dated September 28, 1895, signed by 
C. Douglass Lord and William Muir as to the issuance of the 
policy dated March 12, 1892. On November 21, 1900, C. W. 
Peasley resigned as attorney and was succeeded by Morris W„ 
Sheldon. At a meeting held on November 22, 1902, Morris W. 
Sheldon resigned as attorney and Charles F. Mitchell elected in 
his place, and the so-called charter was probably transferred to Mr. 
Mitchell and newly elected underwriters. 

Mr. Ernest I. Edgcomb in his report stated that he believed that 
this association was formed by means of forged signatures and 
was not transacting the business of insurance on October 1, 18 92. 

Charles S. Wilbur, appointed a commissioner on June 27, 1895, 
by the state comptroller, reported as follows: 

" The company was organized in March, 1892. The gross 
premiums for the year ending June 30, 1892, were $1. Eor the 
year ending June 30, 1893, nothing. Eor the year ending June 
30, 1894, nothing." 

The following testimony was taken on July 10, 1895, before Mr. 
Wilbur. 

" C. W. Peasley being duly sworn testified as follows : 

" Q. When was this company organized ? A. In March, 1892. 

" Q. What were the gross receipts — gross premiums from busi- 
ness done in this state for the year ending June 30, 1892? 
A. Four dollars. 

"Q. For the year ending June 30, 1893? A. Nothing — the 
company was in abeyance for three years. 

" Q. For the year ending June 30, 1894? A. Just the same 
condition." 

On September 28, 1895, the name was changed to " Waldorf 
Fire Lloyds." On December 3, 1900, the name was changed to 
" Fire Association of New York " and on November 22, 1902, the 
name was changed to " Union Underwriters." 

An affidavit dated August 29, 1902, by Timothy J. McEvoy, 
an underwriter, states that the only business in which this associa- 
tion was ever engaged was that of fire insurance. 



Uniox UndepvWkitees 113 

This association did not file a report of its business for the years 
1904 and 1905, with the insurance department, as required by 
section 57 of the insurance law. 

Charles L. McJ^anus, the attorney in fact of this association, is 
a clerk in the office of Charles F. Mitchell, the present attorney of 
the " Garfield Assurance Fire Lloyds " and the " International 
Fire Office." 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this association 

are as follows: 

i 
Name. Address. 

C. M. F. Block 367 Union street, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Milton A. Kates 352 West One Hundred and Eighteenth 

street, New York. 
Ferdinand Blumenthal 138 West One Hundred and Eleventh 

street, New York. 

J. Edward Strauss 132 Nassau street, New York. 

Frank R. Reiss 380 Manhattan street, NeAV York. 

Charles F. Mitchell 56 Pine street, New York. 

L. V. Koch 210 West Ninety-fourth street, New 

York. 
Charles F. McManus 56 Pine street, New York. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the insur- 
ance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 



Cash in office 



LIABILITIES 
Unearned premiums . $i \ ^5 



114 Lloyds Report 



INTER-INSURERS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER LLOYDS 
CHARTERS 

The Following Three Histories and Statements are of Inter- 
insurers Doing Business Under Lloyds " charters/' 

ALLIED UNDERWRITERS AT NEW YORK AND 
CHICAGO LLOYDS 

Home Office, 51 Sixth Avenue, New York 
Attorney-in-fact, E. A. G. Intemann, Jr. 



Date of organization July, 1883. 

Original underwriters Willi amsburgh City Fire Insurance 

Co. of Brooklyn; Plienix Insurance 
Co. of Brooklyn; Greenwich Fire 
Insurance Co. of New York; Com- 
mercial Fire Insurance Co. of New 
York; Exchange Fire Insurance Co. 
of New York; Merchants' Fire In- 
surance Co. of New York; New 
York Fire Insurance Co. of New 
York; Mechanics and Traders' In- 
surance Co. of New York. 

Original attorneys-in-fact Whipple & Co., consisting of A. W. 

Whipple, D. F. Casey, and J. L. 
Parraga. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Considerable volume until July 24, 

1890. In 1890, 1892, and 1893 about 
$150 represented gross premium re- 
ceipts. Not certain that any busi- 
ness was done in New York State. 

Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. Spanish and American Fire Associa- 
tion, from July, 1883, to 1890. 
New York and Chicago Llovds, from 

1890 to December 12, 1901. 
Allied Underwriters at New York and 
Chicago Llovds. from December 12, 
1901, to date. 
Charter sold on June 29. 1900, to 
E. A. G. Intemann. Jr., et al. 

Articles of association, when filed with 

the department August 28. 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Legality uncertain and doubtful. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . Referred to attorney-general, January 

9. 1903. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Underwriters' deposit $20,000. 

Premium income, 190S $0,667.65. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $885,902. 



Allied Underwriters at N. Y. and Chicago Lloyds 115 

The original underwriters of this association transacted a con- 
siderable volume of business until July 24, 1890, from which date 
the association was composed of the individual underwriters, 
Messrs. Whipple, Casey & Parraga. During 1890 the records 
show that the individual underwriters reinsured the liability of 
underwriters in other Lloyds organizations. 

In 1891, David F. Casey and J. C. Parraga were appointed 
attorneys-in-fact by about twenty additional underwriters. On 
June 8, 1896, J. L. Parraga having made an assignment and left 
the country, the underwriters cancelled their powers of attorney 
to J. L. Parraga and continued the business with David P. Casey 
as attorney-in-fact. 

Arthur L. Sherer, a commissioner, in a report to the state comp- 
troller dated July 2, 1896, says that this association is practically 
a branch of the South and North American Lloyds, although it 
claimed to do business as a continuation of the old " Spanish 
American Pire Association," organized in 1883. Some business 
was done in 1890, 1892 and 1893, about $150' being received in 
gross premiums. 

At a hearing held before Charles S. Wilbur, a commissioner, 
appointed by the state comptroller, Joseph L. Parraga, an attorney 
of this association, testified under oath on July 12, 1895, as 
follows : 

" Q. In the matter of the New York and Chicago Lloyds, when 
were they organized ? 

" A. 1883. They did no business in the State of New York 
until the first of November, last year." 

This association seems to have gone into liquidation about June 
10, 1896. On September 21, 1897, one policy of insurance on 
household furniture to the amount of $1,000 was issued to Paul 
P. Kelly, a clerk in the office of John T. Fenlon, one of the under- 
writers. A meeting was held on September 22, 1898, the only 
business being the renewal of this policy to Mr. Kelly. Meetings 
were held on September 22, 1899, September 25, 1900, and Sep- 
tember 25, 1901, and at all these meetings the only business done 
was the renewal of this one policy issued to Mr. Kelly. 

On December 12, 1901, a meeting was held for the purpose of 
bringing in new underwriters, and Ben Austin Boiighan and 



116 Lloyds Report 

David F. Casey, under the name of Boughan & Co., appointed 
attorneys-in-fact. At this meeting the name was changed to 
"Allied Underwriters at New York and Chicago Lloyds." 

A number of new underwriters were added on September 27 
and 30, 1902, and a considerable business transacted until 1905, 
during which year the premium income amounted to but $58. 
From this date until July, 1906, but a very small amount of busi- 
ness was transacted. 

The minute book of the association shows no meeting between 
December 26, 1905, and June 26, 1906. On this latter date 
Messrs. Charles R. Demarest, Edward L. Thompson and Alex- 
ander S. Fisher were elected underwriters. Mr. Demarest was 
also appointed attorney-in-fact. At the same meeting the follow- 
ing resigned as underwriters: Messrs. Reynolds, J. S. McBride, 
Fred R. Bender, E. Pergoli, R. J. Dunphy and J. A. Boughan. 
Resignations as attorneys-in-fact were received from David F. 
Oasey and B. A. Boughan. 

Three days later, on June 29, 1906, having purchased the so- 
called charter or right to transact business, through McKelvey and 
Mattocks, counsel for the then underwriters, the following were 
elected underwriters: Messrs. E. A. G. Intemann, Sr., P. F. 
Klinck, George F. Sturken, J. H. Schwiebert, F. C. Henry Herse 
and E. A. G. Intemann, Jr. The following underwriters resigned: 
Edward L. Thompson, Alexander S. Fisher and Charles R. 
Demarest, the latter also resigning as attorney-in-fact. At the 
same meeting, E. A. G. Intemann, Jr., was elected attorney-in- 
fact to succeed Mr. Demarest. 

At a meeting of the association held on July 20, 1906, a large 
number of new underwriters were added. Since this date an 
active business has been carried on. 

The association now transacts business on the following plan: 

Every policyholder is also an underwriter, and practically all 
the risks assumed are on the confectionery stores in New York 
city. Each underwriter, on becoming such, must make a deposit 
of at least $50 with the attorney-in-fact, such deposit being limited 
to $250. As evidence of such deposits, the attorney-in-fact issues 
to the underwriter a so-called " Certificate of Deposit." Profits 
are declared in accordance with the amount deposited by each 
underwriter. 



Allied Underwriters at ^N". Y. and Chicago Lloyds 117 

The following is the financial statement of this association as 
filed in the insurance department, as of December 31, 1908 : 

assets 

Mortgage loans $17, 500 00 

Cash in office and bank 4, 879 06 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 45 23 

Interest accrued on mortgages 251 32 



Total assets $22, 675 61 



LIABILITIES 

Unearned premiums $3 , 360 10 

Salaries and miscellaneous accounts due or accrued 738 71 



Total liabilities $4, 098 81 



This organization is composed of owners of about 180' con- 
fectionery stores mutually inter-insuring each other against loss 
by fire. The following are the names of the underwriters com- 
posing the executive committee, with their respective addresses : 

Name. Address. 

E. A. G. Intemann, Sr 561 Greenwich street, New York. 

P. F. Klinck 210 Fifth avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

J. H. Dierks 2717 Third avenue, New York. 

John Bruns Richmond Hill, New York. 

Henry Spreen 1142 Third avenue, New York.. 

J. H. Schwiebert 994 East One Hundred and iSixty- 

third street, New York. 

Henry Hesse 31 Myrtle avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

F. C. H. Hesse 531 Fulton street, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Henry Haase 324 Seventh avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Joseph Wilkens 120 Fifth avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

John Wilkens 1157 Bedford avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

John Schumacher 303 Columbia street, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

John Sinnigen 552 Third avenue, New York. 

D. Hellmers 979 Eighth avenue, New York. 

J. H. Niclas 689 Ninth avenue, New York. 

M. Ossenbruggen 746 Columbus avenue, New York. 

E. A. G. Intemann, Jr 51 Sixth avenue, New York. 

G. H. Sturken 1370 Boston road, New York. 



118 Lloyds Report 



AMERICAN EXCHANGE UNDERWRITERS 

Home Office, 29 Liberty Street, New York 
Attorneys-in-fact, Weed & Kennedy 



Date of organization September 29, 1892. 

Original underwriters Cleveland D. Fisher, R. L. Rathbone, 

A. H. Rathbone, F. W. Satterlee, G. 
Weaver Soper, George L. Hammond, 
W. L. Molyneaux, Robert C. Rath- 
bone, George V. Clickener, William 
C. Dreyer. 

Original attorneys-in-fact A. H. Rathbone, F. W. Satterlee, and 

Cleveland D. Fisher. 
Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Four policies issued on September 30, 

1892; premiums received, $10. 
Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. Llovds of New York Citv, from Sep- 
tember 29, 1892, to January 6, 1905. 
. Majestic Insurance Association of New 
"• York, from January 6, 1905, to De- 
cember 20, 1905. 
American Exchange Underwriters, 

from December 20.. 1905, to date. 
Charter sold on November 9. 1905, 
to present owners, for $11,000. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department July 3. 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . . None. 

Kinds of insurance written . . . At present, fire. Formerly, fire and 

inland marine. 

Underwriters' deposit $12,732.58. 

Premium income. 190S $37,300.98. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $5,395,750. 

At a meeting held on September 29, 1892, the attorneys were 
authorized to issue policies immediately. 

The original policy register shows fire insurance policies issued 
on September 30, 1892. 

Assured. Amount. Premium. 

George V. Clickener $150 00 $2 00 

T. J. Leyendecker 125 00 2 00 

E. J. Milligan 200 00 2 00 



American Exchange Underwriters 119 

An inland marine policy was issued to W. T. Herbert, Jr., for 
$100, premium $1. 

The bank pass book shows a deposit on September 30, 1892, to 
the credit of the advisory committee of $86. 

The minute book shows that the first meeting was held on Sep- 
tember 30, 1892, at which the advisory committee was named 
and " Certain risks were submitted and accepted by the commit- 
tee.'' Also, " It was then moved and seconded that the fire policy 
to be adopted by the Lloyds be as nearly as practicable in the body 
thereof, the standard fire policy of the State of New York." 

The next meeting was held on April 17, 1893. 

At a meeting held on January 12, 1894, it appears " The fol- 
lowing insurances expiring September 30, 1893, were renewed and 
premiums paid, viz. : George V. Clickener, $2 ; T. J. Leyen- 
decker, $2 ; E. J. Milligan, $2 ; the policy of W. T. Herbert, 
Jr., was not renewed." The assets at this time amounted to $116. 

At a meeting held on February 24, 1894, A. H. Rathbone, 
F. W. Satterlee and Cleveland D. Fisher resigned as attorneys-in- 
fact and the firm of D. E. Satterlee & Co., consisting of Douglass 
R. Satterlee and E. K. Satterlee, were elected attorneys-in-fact and 
general managers. 

On May 14, 1896, the attorney-general addressed the following 
letter : 

Hon. Clarence Lexow, 19 Liberty Street, New York City. 

My Dear Sir : — In regard to the Lloyds of New York City 
concerning whose business status you interviewed me some few 
days ago, I beg to say that no complaints have been made to this 
office against that Lloyds, and that, as far as I am advised from 
statements made upon the part of the company to me, I should 
judge that said Lloyds was lawfully engaged in the transaction 
of business prior to October 1st, 1892. 

Yours very truly, 

T. E. Hancock, 

Attorney-General. 

At a meeting held on September 18, 1896, it appears, " The 
underwriters of ' The Lloyds ' of New York having decided to 
suspend business, a committee has been appointed with authority 



120 Lloyds Report 

to represent the underwriters with regard to all unadjusted mat- 
ters. The inability to make collections has necessitated the action 
by the underwriters. Messrs. D. R. Satterlee & Co., were author- 
ized so to do." 

The minutes of the association do not show any record of any 
meetings held between September 18, 1896, and January 18, 
1902, nor were the attorneys of the association able to produce any 
records of any policies written or in force between these dates. 

At the meeting held on September 8, 1896, the following were 
present: Messrs. Belding, Dreyer, Munn, Smith and Satterlee. 

At the meeting held on January 18, 1902, the following were 
present: D. R. Satterlee & Co., W. C. Pate, Alexander Robb, 
Carlton 0. Pate, Pate & Robb, Wm. 0. Dreyer, E. K. Satterlee, 
A. H. Rathbone, George P. Johnson, Andrew J. Bates, M. M. 
Belding, Jr., E. L. Munn, N. E. Waldstein, Worthington Smith 
& Co., Andrew B. Knowlson and Louis C. Fuller. At this meet- 
ing resignations were received from Messrs. Knowlson, Fuller, 
Rathbone, Satterlee & Co., E. K. Satterlee, Johnson, Morgan and 
Bates. At the same meeting, Messrs. D. R. Satterlee & Co. re- 
signed as attorneys and were succeeded by Messrs. Wm. C. Pate 
and Alexander Robb. 

A letter of L. E. Bomeisler to the superintendent of insurance, 
dated April 12, 1901, regarding the question as to whether this 
association could legally transact business, reads in part as 
follows : 

" The Lloyds from 1892 to date wrote over $100,000 in pre- 
miums. There are at present fourteen underwriters in the Lloyds 
whose powers of attorney are in full force and effect. 

" There are at present outstanding policies in force of the 
Lloyds as follows: Policy ISo. 10182 for $1,500 dated September 
6th, 1895, renewed September 6th, 1896, renewed September 6th, 
1897, renewed September 6th, 1900, for three years said policy 
expiring September 6th, 1903. Premiums thereon and all re- 
newals having been duly. paid. 

" Policy No. 15472 for $750 dated September 5th, 1899, re- 
newed October 6th, 1900, for one year expiring October 6th, 1901. 
Premium and premiums for said renewal all having been duly 
paid. 

' Policy 5s T o. 15173 for $1,000 dated September 5th, 1900, to 
September 5, 1901, the premium thereon having been paid. 



American Exchange Underwriters 121 

" Policy Xo. 15474 for $1,000 dated September 5th, 1900, to 
September 5th, 1901, the premium on said policy having been 
duly paid." 

Under date of May 24, 1901, the following letter was issued 
from the insurance department: 

Mr. L. E. Bomeisler, 27 Pine Street, New York. 

Pear Sib. — In further acknowledgment of yours of the 
12th ultimo, submitting various documents in re " The Lloyds " 
of Xew York City, we would advise you that we are this day in 
receipt of a communication from the attorney-general, copy of 
which is enclosed for your information. 

You will note that the attorney-general holds that in his 
opinion, after an examination of the documents and the facts pre- 
sented, that said association may legally transact business in this 
state. 

The documents forwarded in yours of April 12th are returned 
as requested. 

Yours respectfully, 

Francis Hendricks, 

Superintendent 

The communication from the attorney-general above referred to 
is as follows : 

May 23, 1901. 

Hon. 'Francis Hendricks, Snpt. of Insurance, Albany, N. Y. 

My Dear Sir. — Replying to your favor of recent date regard- 
ing letter addressed to your department by Louis E. Bomeisler, 
of Xew York City, with reference to " The Lloyds " in New 
York City, I have the honor to say that I have examined the en- 
closed documents and am of the opinion from the facts presented, 
that this association may legally transact business in this state. 
I return herewith to you the letter of Mr. Bomeisler with 
enclosures. 

Very truly yours, 

John C. Da vies, 

Attorney-General. 

At a meeting held on July 14, 1902, the following Tinder- 
writers were elected: Joseph H. Everett, Willis G. Townes, James 
W. Durbrow, John B. Campbell. Resignations were received from 



122 Lloyds Report 

William C. Pate, C. O. Pate and Alexander Robb. At this meet- 
ing Pate & Kobb resigned as attorneys and were succeeded by the 
firm of Durbrow, Campbell & Co., consisting of J. M. Bellups, 
John B. Campbell and James W. Durbrow. 

On June 10, 1903, the firm of Campbell, Gillespie & Co. were 
elected attorney-in-fact in place of Durbrow, Campbell & Co. 

An active business was transacted in 1902, 1903 and to April, 
1904. 

In the minutes of a meeting held on April 1, 1904, the follow- 
ing resolution appears: 

" Resolved, That Campbell & Co., attorneys-in-fact and acting 
on behalf of the individual underwriters at Lloyds of New York 
city be and are hereby instructed to cancel every policy out- 
standing on the books of said Lloyds, such cancellation to take 
effect at the earliest possible moment." 

On April 11, 1904, Campbell, Gillespie & Co. resigned as at- 
torneys and the minutes do not show that any attorneys-in-fact 
were elected as their successors. 

The only underwriters of the association from December 27, 
1904, to November 9, 1905, appear to have been Vincent R. 
Schenck, Clarence Schenck and Robert P. Schenck. 

At a meeting held on January 6, 1905, the name was changed 
to " Majestic Insurance Association of New York." 

On November 9, 1905, Samuel R. Weed, Joseph S. Irving and 
Stewart S. Eames purchased for $11,000 the so-called charter, 
from the Messrs. Schenck, and on that date Messrs. Weed and 
Irving signed the articles of agreement and on November 10, 1905, 
they were signed by Mr. Eames. The firm of Weed & Kennedy 
were appointed attorneys-in-fact. 

Since that date the association has been operating both as an 
inter-insurance organization and a Lloyds association. The three 
underwriters, Messrs. Weed, Irving and Eames, keep in force 
three or four policies a year for the purpose of keeping the Lloyds 
association " charter " alive. The inter-insurance organization is 
operated under the same " charter " right but on an entirely dif- 
ferent plan and with a separate power-of-attorney. It seems, 



American Exchange Underwriters 123 

therefore, that, under a so-called Lloyds " charter," two entirely 
separate organizations are operating. 

The inter-insurance organization is operated on the following 
plan: 

The initial payment is one annual premium on the amount of 
the policy, together with an additional sum equal to one-half of 
said premium (on the first policy only) the latter payment being 
in order to establish the fifty per cent, reserve fund required by 
the insurance law of the state of New York. This reserve is 
computed on the same basis as the reserve of stock companies ; 
it is placed to the individual credit of each subscriber as received, 
and cannot be used for the payment of losses or expenses. After 
the first year the payment is confined to the premium only. The 
trustees elected annually admit new members and control all 
funds belonging to subscribers. The managers' compensation is 
fifteen per cent, of the premiums. The basis of subscription is 
$2,500, this being, not a cash deposit, but the limit of liability 
which may be underwritten by any one subscriber On any one 
sprinklered risk. The maximum liability is limited by the agree- 
ment not to exceed $2,500 on any one risk, or more than four 
times that amount, irrespective of the number of risks or policies 
in force. 

From the records of the association it appears that from the 
date of organization until 1894, the association had issued but 
a very few policies, possibly twelve. During 1894 to September 
18, 1896, the association was actively engaged in business. Very 
little business seems to have been transacted between 1896 and 
1902. From 1902 until April, 1904, a large volume of business 
was transacted. But a few policies were written from this date 
until November, 1905. From that date down to the present time 
an active business has been carried on. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this association, 
each assuming a maximum liability of $10,000, are as follows : 

Name. Address. 

H. B. Claflin Co West Broadway, New York. 

Mills & Gibbs 462 Broadway,' New York. 

Stern Bros 32 West Twenty-third street. New 

York. 
James McCreery & Co 64 West Twenty-third street. New 

York. 

J. H. Dunham Co 340 Broadway. New York. 

A. D. Mathews' Sons 394 Fulton street, Brooklyn. X. Y. 

Frederick Loeser & Co 484 Fulton street. Brooklyn. N. Y. 

Balch. Price & Co 376 Fulton street. Brooklyn. X. Y. 



124 Lloyds Report 



Name. Address. 

Lord & Taylor New York. 

Lesher, Whitman & Co New York. 

Lit Brothers Philadelphia, Pa. 

'Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co Providence, R. I. 

Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co Rochester, N. Y. 

Brown, Thompson & Co Kartford, Conn. 

Hahne & Co Newark, N. J. 

Kaufman Brothers Pittsburg, Pa. 

McCreery & Co Pittsburg, Pa. 

St. Louis Coffin Co St. Louis. Mo. 

Stix, Baer & Fuller Dry Goods Co. . . St. Louis, Mo. 

Strouse & Bros Baltimore, Md. 

Schloss Bros. & Co Baltimore, Md. 

Strauss Bros Baltimore, Md. 

John Shillito Co Cincinnati, O. 

S. Kann, Sons & Co Washington, D. C. 

Woodward & Lothrop Washington, D. C. 

Mandel Bros Chicago, 111. 

Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co . . . Chicago, 111. 

Hayden Bros., Inc Omaha, Neb. 

Parker, Bridget & Co Washington, D. C. 

New York Consolidated Card Co New York. 

Lehn & Fink New York. 

Daniel Miller Co Baltimore, Md. 

Strauss Bros Chicago, 111. 

Sherwin-Williams Co Cleveland, O. 

H. Leonard & Sons Grand Rapids, Mich. 

Stickley Bros. Co Grand Rapids, Mich. 

Stewart Dry Goods Co Louisville, Ky. 

Minneapolis Dry Goods Co Minneapolis, Minn. 

Castner-Knott Dry Goods Co Nashville, Tenn. 

Warren, Neely & Co Nashville, Tenn. 

Dives, Pomeroy & Stewart Reading, Pa. 

Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co St. Louis, Mo. 

Hunter Tuppen Co Syracuse, N. Y. 

John C. Eaton (The T. Eaton Co.).. Toronto, Canada. 

John C. Eaton (The T. Eaton Co.).. Winnepeg, Canada. 

Susquehanna Silk Mills New York. 

John E. Hurst & Co Baltimore, Md. 

Gimbel Bros Philadelphia, Pa. 

Dayton Dry Goods Co Minneapolis, Minn. 

Frank Realty Co Baltimore, Md. 

J. E. Linde Paper Co New York. 

Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co Chicago, 111. 

H. Childs & Co Pittsburg, Pa. 

Douglas & Co Cedar Rapids, Mich. 

Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods Co.. Kansas City, Kan. 

Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co Grand Rapids, Mich. 

Hall Bros.. Inc San Francisco, Cal. 

A. Hamburger & Sons Los Angeles, Cal. 

The Lasalle & Koch Co Toledo, 0. 

The MacDougall & iSouthwick Co ... . Seattle, Wash. 

Mcintosh & Co Springfield, Mass. 

Montgomerv Fair Montgomery, Ala. 

C. F. Rumpf & Sons Philadelphia, Pa. 

Weinstock, Lubin & Co Sacramento, Cal. 

Van Vleet Mansfield Drug Co Minneapolis. Minn. 

Wheeler & Motler Mercantile Co St. Joseph, Mo. 

Herman Bros., Lindauer & Co Nashville, Tenn. 

H. A. Caesar & Co New York. 

Lewis P. Ross Rochester, N. Y. 



American Exchange Under writers 125 

Name. Address. 

Wm. Hengerer Co Buffalo, N. Y. 

Simmons Warehouse Co St. Louis, Mo. 

B. Lowenstein & Bros Memphis, Tenn. 

I. Freimith Duluth, Minn. 

Clauson & Wilson Co Buffalo, N. Y. 

Luckey, Piatt & Co Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 

H. S. Crocker Co San Francisco, Cal. 

Downing, Clark & Co New York. 

The names and addresses of the underwriters who operate as a 
u Lloyds " association, each assuming a maximum liability of 
$5,000, are as follows: 

Name. Address. 

S. R. Weed 29 Liberty street, New York. 

J. S. Irving 29 Liberty street, New York. 

S. W. Eames 226 Worth street, New York. 

The annual statement of this association as filed in the insur- 
ance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Book value of bonds $64 , 650 00 

Cash in bank 13, 677 73 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 2, 709 05 

Interest accrued on bonds 351 66 



Total assets $81. 388 44 



LIABILITIES 

Unearned premiums $18, 530 31 

Commissions and other charges due agents or brokers 837 56 

Total liabilities . $19. 367 87 



126 Lloyds Kepost 



NORTH AMERICAN IXTER-IXSUREKS 
OF THE CITY OE NEW YORK 

Home Office, 35 Nassau Street, New York 
Attorneys-in-fact. Benedict & Benedict 



Date of organization Articles of association dated April 9, 

1892. 

Original underwriters Unknown. The original advisory 

board consisted of James Lawson, 
Albert Gallup, Randolph Hurry, 
Charles M. Jesup, and Henry G'. 
©wight. 

Original attorneys-in-fact Edmund Dwight, Jr., Graham P. Cun- 
ningham, and Theodore H. Smith. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. Unknown. The attorneys refuse to 

produce original records. 

Changes in name, sales of charter, etc. North American Lloyds from April 9, 

1892, to April 15, 1896. 
North American Inter-Insurers of the 
Citv of New York, from April 15, 
1896 to date. 

Articles of association, when filed with 

the department Actually filed January 8, 1903 ; ac- 
cepted as filed September 1, 1892. 

Edgcom'o classification Articles of association not having been 

filed before September, 1902, no ex- 
amination made. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . Referred to attorney-general, Novem- 
ber 19, 1902, for failure to file ar- 
ticles before September 1, 1902. 

Kind of insurance written Eire. 

Subscribers deposit, December 31, 

1908 Subscribers bonds, $584,000. No cash 

deposit. 

Premium income, 1908 $67,401.51. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $8,663,000. 

On April 15, 1896, the so-called charter was sold, and the name 
was changed to " North American Inter-Insnrers of the City of 
!N"ew York." Up to this time the association had been operated 
as a " Lloyds " association but it seems that after this date it was 
conducted as an inter-insurance organization on the following 
plan. 

The members are divided into three classes known as the ten 
thousand dollar class, the five thousand dollar class, and the 



North American Inter-Insurers 127 

twenty-five hundred dollar class and the name of every member is 
signed to every policy except his own. Every member receives on 
his policy an amount from every other member equal to what he 
himself underwrites on the policy of each of such other members ; 
for example, if he belongs to the ten thousand dollar class, he 
underwrites the policy of every other member of that class for 
ten thousand dollars, and every other member of that class under- 
writes his policy for ten thousand dollars, and he underwrites the 
policy of every member of the five thousand dollar class in the 
sum of five thousand dollars, and his own policy is underwritten 
by every member of the fLye thousand dollar class in that sum. 

It was claimed by counsel for this organization that it was not 
under legal obligations to file any papers with the superintendent 
of insurance, under the provisions of chapter 297 of the laws of 
1902, and for that reason a copy of its articles of association was 
not filed in the insurance department before September 1, 1902. 
They were actually filed, under protest, on January 8, 190'3, and 
the following letter was issued by the department : 

January 8, 1.903. 

George Richards, Attorney-at-law , 141 Broadway , New York 
City. 

Dear Sir. — I am in receipt of your letter of January 7th, 
enclosing the articles of association and amendments thereto of the 
North American Inter-Insurers of New York city filed pursuant 
to the provisions of Chapter 297 of the Laws of 1902. 

I have to advise you that the papers are received nunc pro tunc 
and have been filed as of September 1, 1902. 
Respectfully yours, 

Francis Hendricks, 

Superintendent 



The present articles of agreement provide in part as follows : 

Second. — Each subscriber shall at the time of signing this 
agreement deliver to the Advisory Board his bond or other obliga- 
tion in form, as approved by said board, payable on demand to 
the order of the Treasurer of said Board, for twice the amount 
for which he shall authorize said attorneys to grant insurance on 



128 Lloyds Kepoet 

any one risk in his name. Any subscriber may, instead of de- 
livering his bond or other obligation as aforesaid, pay in cash to 
the treasurer of the Advisory Board twice the amount for which he 
shall authorize said Attorneys to grant insurance on any one risk 
in his name, and he shall be entitled to receive interest at the rate 
of four per cent, per annum upon the amount of cash so paid in, 
remaining to his credit. Said bond, or other obligation, or the 
proceeds thereof when paid,- or cash, together with all earnings 
thereon, and all sums placed to the credit of such subscriber, in 
the course of business may be paid out or deposited or loaned or 
borrowed upon or pledged as collateral or invested in part or 
whole, as may seem expedient to said Advisory Board, which is 
hereby fully authorized to make such disposition of said bond or 
other obligation or cash or investments or funds as shall seem to 
said Advisory Board to be to the interest of the subscribers. Upon 
the receipt of said bond or other obligation, or cash, the Advisory 
Board, by its Treasurer, shall issue to the subscriber a suitable 
certificate of such receipt. Each subscriber shall also be entitled 
to receive from the Advisory Board a statement of his account at 
the close of each fiscal year. 

Third. — Whenever in the opinion of the Advisory Board the 
amount in the hands of said Board to the credit of any subscriber 
w T ho shall have delivered a bond or other obligation as aforesaid, 
shall be insufficient to meet the liabilities of such subscriber under 
this agreement, said Advisory Board shall instruct the attorneys to 
demand from such subscriber such sum as will, in the judgment 
of said board, be sufficient to make good the deficiency, and the 
attorneys shall have the right to collect such sum and bring and 
prosecute an action in their own name therefor for the benefit 
of all the subscribers hereto. Such sum, when paid, shall be 
credited to the subscriber as a payment on account on his said 
bond or other obligation, and any subscriber failing to make good 
such deficiency within thirty days after being notified to pay, 
shall thereby cease to be a party to this agreement, except as to 
contracts outstanding and liabilities existing in the name of such 
subscriber. 

Fourth. — Except as hereinafter in this article provided, every 
subscriber shall have an equal share with every other subscriber 
of the same class in every policy issued to subscribers. By sub- 
scribers of the same class is meant subscribers who shall have 
authorized the attorneys to grant insurance in their names up to 
the same specified amount. Every engagement and transaction 
shall be, and shall be made or done, in the name of each sub- 
scriber, individually and severally and no engagement or transac- 



^Nobth American Ixtee-Ixsueees 129 

tion shall be made on the joint behalf of two or more subscribers, 
and no subscriber shall underwrite a policy covering property 
owned by such subscriber nor be liable for any loss or damage to 
such property, and no subscriber shall have the right to any share 
of transactions made before such subscriber shall have signed this 
agreement and complied with its conditions entitling him to be 
represented by the attorneys, and insurance shall not be granted 
in the name of any subscriber in favor of any other subscriber 
for a greater amount than the amount for which such other sub- 
scriber shall have authorized the attorneys to grant insurance on 
any one risk in his name. 

Upon the issuance of every policy and the receipt of premium 
therefor, the account of each underwriting subscriber shall be 
credited with his proportionate amount thereof, and debited with 
the attorneys' compensation and other charges as hereinafter pro- 
vided. Every policy shall be signed by the attorneys for each 
subscriber, individually and severally. 

Fifth. — Xo subscriber shall be or become liable by reason of 
a fire or fires damaging or destroying or otherwise causing loss 
of property covered by several policies issued pursuant to this 
agreement for more than twice the sum for which such subscriber 
shall have empowered said attorneys to grant insurance on any 
one risk in his name, but if in consequence of such a fire or fires, 
the aggregate of adjusted claims against any underwriter on such 
policy shall amount to more than twice the amount for which such 
subscriber shall have empowered said attorneys to grant insurance 
on any one risk in his name, each of said adjusted claims shall 
suffer a proportionate reduction sufficient to reduce such aggre- 
gate of adjusted claims by reason of said fire or fires against such 
underwriter to twice the sum for which such subscriber shall have 
empowered said attorneys to grant insurance on any one risk in 
his name. It is expressly understood and agreed by and between 
the subscribers hereto that any subscriber who shall have paid 
cas-h in lieu of a bond or other obligation as aforesaid, or who 
shall have paid in in cash to the Treasurer of the Advisory Board 
the full amount of his said bond or other obligation, shall not be 
liable to any further cause, but his liability as an underwriter or 
otherwise hereunder shall be limited to the funds standing to his 
credit in the hands of the Advisory Board. No subscriber shall 
reinsure, or in any manner transfer, his liability under these 
articles of agreement, nor any part thereof, except upon written 
consent of the party or parties insured, and upon the written 
approval of the Advisory Board, which written consent and ap- 
proval shall be filed with the Secretary of the Advisory Board. 



130 Lloyds Report 

Any subscriber who shall reinsure without such consent and ap- 
proval shall forfeit all rights under these articles of agreement. 

Mr. Ernest I. Edgcomb did not investigate the question as to 
whether or not this association was legally organized, as it did not 
file a copy of its articles of association before September 1, 1902. 
It is uncertain as to whether this association was legally engaged 
in the transaction of business on October 1, 1892. 

In regard to investigating the conditions and affairs of this 
organization. Messrs. Benedict & Benedict, the attorneys, re- 
ferred your examiner to Mr. George Richards, counsel for the 
organization, and upon Mr. Richards' request, your examiner ad- 
dressed a letter to him stating what would be desired in the c< »urse 
of the investigation. This letter and Mr. Richards' answer, which 
are self-explanatory, are as follows: 

June 5, 1900. 

Mr. George Richards, 111 Broadway, New York City. 

Dear Sir. — Confirming my conversation with you yesterday, 
I enclose herein a copy of appointment by the superintendent of 
insurance under which I am investigating the condition and 
affairs of Lloyds Associations and individual underwriters. In 
making the exammafion of your organization, I would necessarily 
take up its history from the beginning to date ; that is, I would 
desire to see the original policy register, minute book or such other 
documents as would be required to make a complete examination 
of the affairs of your organization from its inception to the 
present time. 

Respectfully yours. 
(Signed) John L. Train, 

Assistant Exa m in er. 

June 15, 1009. 

John L. Train. Assistant Examiner, 165 Broadway, Nov York, 
N. Y. 

Dear Mr. Train. — T send you a list of the members of the 
^orth American Inter-Insurers. Messrs. Benedict & Benedict 
are and for many years have been the attorneys-in-fact. The 
form of agreements of the association and their papers are now 
on file with the department. 



Xoeth American Intjsb-Insubebs 131 

My clients are not engaged in the business of insurance in the 
sense of soliciting the public generally. On the other hand they 
simply exchange among themselves private contracts of indemnity 
as a proper and almost necessary incident of their mercantile busi- 
ness. While the number of reliable stock companies has been 
greatly diminishing, the aggregation of values in important risks 
has been greatly increasing so that when my clients entered into 
their arrangements with one another they had found it very diffi- 
cult to cover their risks with suitable insurance. They entered 
into these arrangements relying upon the provisions of the JSTew 
York statutes that such an association as theirs enjoyed the right 
and privilege -of exemption from investigation. They hope that 
the superintendent of insurance will find reason for extending to 
them the full benefit of these statutory provisions existing in their 
favor and that as under former administrations of the depart- 
ment, so in the future they may continue to enjoy the cordial 
approval and friendly co-operation of the superintendent. They 
feel that owing to the character of their insurance contracts very 
strong and special reasons exist for withholding their private 
affairs from the public files, except as the law of the state may 
otherwise require. 

Yours very truly, 

(Signed) Geobge Richaeds, 

The names and addresses of the underwriters of this association, 
each assuming the liability set opposite their respective names, are 
as follows : 

Name. Address. Amount. 

Arnold. Constable & Co.. 881 Broadway, New York $20. 000 

R. H. Maey & Co., 1317 Broadway, New York 20, 000 

Stern Brothers, 32 West Twenty-third street, New York 20, 000 

Abraham & Strauss, 422 Fulton street, Brooklyn, N. Y. 20.000 

Woodward & Lothrop, 1007 F street, Washington, D. C 20. 000 

B. Altman & Co.. 295 Sixth avenue. New York 20. 000 

B. H. White Co., Washington and Bedford streets, Boston, 

Mass 20. 000 

The H. B. Claflin Co., Church and Worth streets, New York . . . 20. 000 
Strawbridge & Clothier, Market and Filbert streets, Philadel- 
phia, Pa 20. 000 

Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co., Eleventh and Walnut 

streets, Kansas City, Mo 20, 000 

The Pittsburg Dry Goods Co., 933 Penn avenue, Pittsburg. Pa.. 2o! 000 
Frederick Loeser & Co., Fulton and Bond streets, Brooklyn. 

N - Y 20. 000 

The John Shillito Co., Race and Seventh streets, Cincinnati, 

Ohio 20. 000 

John Wanamaker, Broadway and Ninth street, New York. . . . 20.000 

C. F. Hovey & Co., Sumner and Avon streets, Boston, Mass. . . 20. 000 
N. Snellenburg & Co., Market and Girard streets, Philadel- 
phia, Pa 20. 000 



132 Llovds Kepoet 

Name. Address. Amount. 

Lord & Taylor, S95 Broadway, New York $20, 000 

Brooks Brothers, 932 Broadway, New York 20, 000 

American Lithographic Co., Fourth avenue and East Nine- 
teenth street, New York 20, 000 

Balch, Price & Co., 376 Fulton street, Brooklyn, N. Y 20, 000 

Kaufmann Bros., 400 Fifth avenue, Pittsburg, Pa 20, 000 

Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., 22 Clinton avenue, North Roch- 
ester, N. Y 20,000 

Gimlbe Bros. Incorporated, 7 Grand Ave., Milwaukee, Wis. . . . 10,000 

Lesher, Whitman & Co., 670 Broadway, New York. 10, 000 ' 

The H. & S. Pogue Co., Cincinnati, Ohio 10. 000 

The Sweeney Co., Buffalo, N. Y 10, 000 

Hutchinson, Pierce & Co., Incorporated, 842 Broadway, New 

York .. . 10, 000 

The Shoenberg Mercantile Co., St. Louis, Mo 10, 000 

L. F. Domerick & Co., 57 Greene street, New York 10. 000 

L. Bamberger & Co., 141 Market street, Newark, N. J . 10. 000 

L. S. Donaldson & Co., 601 Nicollet avenue, Minneapolis, Minn. 5. 000 

Passavant & Co., 83 Greene street, New York 5. 000 

The Denver Dry Goods Co., 700 Sixteenth street, Denver, Colo. 5. 000 

II. Batterman, 747 Broadway, Brooklyn, N. Y 5, 000 

S. Kaun, Sons & Co., 705 Market space, Washington, D. C... 5,000 
Jones, McDuffee & Stratton Co., 25 Franklin street, Boston, 

Mass 5,000 

Browning, King & Co. (a corporation), 16 Cooper square, 

New York 5, 000 

Frederick Vietor & Achelis, 96 Spring street, New York 5, 000 

H. C. F. Kock & Co., 152 West 125th street, New York 5. 000 

L. Greif & Bro., Baltimore, Md 5 . 000 

W. M. Whitnev & Co., Albanv, N. Y 5, 000 

H. A. Meldrum Co., Buffalo, N. Y 5, 000 

The Fair, Monroe and State streets, Chicago, 111 5, 000 

Mills & Gibbs, Incorporated, 462 Broadway, New York 3, 000 

Boggs & Buhl, Incorporated, Allegheny Pa 3. 000 

Hochchild, Kohn & Co., Baltimore, Md 3. 000 



The annual statement of this association as filed in the insur- 
ance department shows its financial condition on December 31, 
1908, to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Book value of bonds owned $396, 818 89 

Cash in bank 10, 170 74 

Gross premiums in course of collection 9, 601 53 

Interest accrued on bonds 4, 887 98 

Market value of bonds over book value 1, 662 36 



Total assets $423, 141 50 



LIABILITIES 



Unearned premiums $33, 765 33 

Interest due or accrued remaining unpaid 500 00 



Total liabilities $34. 265 33 



INDIVIDUAL XJ^DEE WRITERS 13 S 



INTER INSURERS, PROPER 

The following three histories and statements are of inter- 
insurers, proper: 

INDIVIDUAL UjSTDERWKITERS 

Home Office, 90 West Street, New York 
Attorney-in-fact, John K. Waters 



Date of organization 1881. 

Original subscribers Unknown. Records not available. 

Original attorney-in-fact Unknown. Records not available. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. A considerable amount. Records not 

available as to specific amount. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department June 30, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . None. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Subscribers' deposits. December 31, 

1908 ' $321,000. 

Premium income, 1908 $398,654.04. 

Number of policies in force December 

31, 1908 Inter-insurance policies of 279 sub- 
scribers. 

This organization was established in 1881 and since that date 
has been actively engaged in business. This is an aggregation of 
individual underwriters operating through an attorney-in-fact and 
each policyholder or subscriber reciprocally insuring each other 
against loss by fire. 

Each subscriber is required to make a cash deposit with the 
advisory committee, equal to the maximum amount for which he 
is willing to insure any building (or its contents) of the other 
subscribers; this may be $500, $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000. This 
deposit is held as an emergency fund to be drawn in case the sub- 
scriber's premium income should not prove adequate to meet his 
losses. If this fund is impaired it must be made good. Pre- 
miums are paid at the current rates, and at the end of the fiscal 
year, December 31st, a dividend equal to interest at the rate of six 
per cent, per annum on the emergency fund deposit is paid to 



134 Lloyd? Report 

the subscriber out of his premium income, and whatever balances 
then appear to his credit above a sum equal to his emergency fund 
is also paid to him. 

The attorney receives fifteen per cent, on the premium for his 
services, from which he pays the disbursements for rent, salaries, 
traveling expenses, printing, supplies and other customary office 
and business expenses. 

An advisory committee consisting of five subscribers passes on 
applicants as subscribers as to moral and financial responsibility, 
and the members of this committee are also the trustees of the 
subscribers' moneys and securities. The classes of risks insured 
are principally dry goods, hardware, boots and shoes, groceries, 
goods in storage warehouses, clothing and sprinkler equipped 
factories. If a subscriber becomes irresponsible, the advisory com- 
mittee has authority forthwith to retire and close out his sub- 
scribership. In case of an extensive fire, involving a number of 
buildings, the policies provide that he shall be responsible for ten 
times the amount of his emergency fund deposit, and no more. 
"No underwriter shall in any event be made jointly liable with the 
others, or with any one or either of the others, or otherwise than 
sevc rally. 

This organization was actively engaged in business on October 
1, 1892, and has transacted a considerable volume of business to 
date. 

The financial statement of this organization of inter-insurers as 
of December 31, IOCS, as filed in the insurance department 
shows : 

ASSETS 

Book value of bonds owned $470, 310 00 

Cash in bank 292, 716 90 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 837 02 

Interest accrued on bonds 3, 583 34 

Total assets $767, 447 26 



LIABILITIES 

Unearned premiums $154, 603 78 

Dividends unpaid 139. 184 14 

Subscribers' deposits 321, 000 00 

Total liabilities $614. 847 92 



This organization is composed of 279 subscribers who recipro- 
cate fire insurance indemnity, and as the subscribers are con- 
stantly changing no list is given. 



New York Reciprocal Underwriters 135 



NEW YORK RECIPROCAL UNDERWRITERS 

Home Office, 90 West Street, New York 
Attorney-in-fact, John R. Waters 



Date of organization 1891. 

Original subscribers Unknown. Records not available. 

Original attorney-in-fact John R. Waters. 

Business done prior to October 1, 1892. A considerable amount. Records 

showing exact amount not available. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department June 30, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney -general and 

legal proceeding's against, if any. . . None. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Subscribers' deposits None. 

Premium income, 1908 $458,567.43. 

Number of policies in force December 

31. 1908 Inter-insurance policies of 300 sub- 
scribers. 

The subscribers or underwriters of this organization reciprocally 
insure each other against loss by fire. 

The subscriber is not required to make an initial deposit, but 
the premiums received to the credit of each subscriber as an in- 
surer of the properties of the other subscribers are held in trust 
by the advisory committee and accumulated up to $4,000 as an 
emergency fund, and it is provided that the income of each sub- 
scriber above said reserve fund of $4,000 shall be paid out to him 
at the end of each year. Each subscriber's liability in a conflagra- 
tion is limited to $20,000. An advisory committee of five sub- 
scribers determine the moral and financial acceptability of each 
applicant. 

The attorney-in-fact receives fifteen per cent, of the premiums 
for his services, from which he pays the rent, salaries, traveling 
expenses, printing, supplies and other customary office and busi- 
ness expenses. 

It is claimed that the soundness and security of the indemnity 
which subscribers furnish to each other is u the financial standing 



136 Lloyds Report 

and high character of each subscriber, the fact that all of them 
are accustomed to carry out contracts in a business-like manner, 
the small line (never in excess of $2,000) assumed on any block 
or square by any subscriber, and the accumulation of a reserve 
fund of $4,000 to the credit of each subscriber, before cash divi- 
dends are paid.' 7 Economy results " from the inter-insuring of 
subscribers' properties only, which minimizes the element of 
moral hazard, from the loss expense cost, from insuring carefully 
selected and sprinkler-equipped risks only, and from a careful anct 
frequent inspection." 

A separate power of attorney is given by some of the inter- 
insurers under the title at " Xew York Reciprocal Underwriters 
(Large Area Segregation) " and the power of attorney provides 
in part as follows : 

" Whereas, The powers of attorney customarily issued to said 
John R. Waters, in said department or bureau, contain a stipu- 
lation providing that in case any merchants or others are engaged 
in any special line of business or of manufacturing, the nature 
of which would make it expedient, said John R. Waters may, 
instead of making such merchants or others, underwriters on the 
properties of the customary subscribers and inter-insurers with 
them, restrict and limit their liability to their special lines of 
business or classes of risks among themselves, subject to such regu- 
lations as may be adopted by the advisory committee, that they 
may appoint ; and 

"Whereas, It is expedient that merchants and others who occupy 
premises of extensive area having contents requiring large lines 
of insurance, specially insure each other independently of and 
in addition to whatever previous or other insurances they or any 
of them may enjoy or be responsible for in their capacity of 
original subscribers at the department or bureau aforesaid ; ' and 
the subscribers appoint John R. Waters ' to insure and reinsure 
property and any interest therein against any and all lawful 
risks of destruction, injury, loss or damage by fire and lightning 
* * * * and to subscribe such policies with our name and 
with the amounts insured by us which shall in no case exceed 
the sum of five thousand dollars upon any one risk, * * * * 
provided, however, that by no policy of insurance nor by any 
other act shall our said attorney have power to do or perform 
anything whatsoever which shall in any manner make us jointly 
liable with any other person or persons, firm or firms, corporation 
or corporations." 



Xew York Reciprocal. Underwriters 137 



The annual statement of this association as filed in the insurance 
department shows its financial condition on December 31, 1908, 
to have been as follows: 

ASSETS 

Book value of bonds owned $390, 881 25 

Cash in bank 1, 015, 802 90 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 576 22 

Interest accrued on bonds 3, 342 36 



Total assets $1, 410, 602 73 



LIABILITIES 

Unearned premiums $190, 324 15 

Dividends unpaid 247, 915 82 



Total liabilities $438, 239 97 



This statement is a summary of 300 private accounts of sub- 
scribers who reciprocate fire insurance indemnity, and as the 
subscribers are constantly changing no list is given. 



138 Lloyds Report 



THE IKDEM2QTY EXCHANGE 

Home Office, 240 La Salle Street, Chicago,. 111. 
Attorneys-in-fact, William & R. M. Williamson 



Date of organization 4pril 1, 1892. 

Original underwriters Armour Packing Co., Anglo-American 

Provision Co., Geo. Fowler. Son & 
Co., The Cudahy Packing Co.. Kin- 
gan & Co.. and Reid Bros. Packing 
Co. 

Original attorneys-in-fact William & R. M. Williamson. 

Business done prior to October 1.1892. Premium receipts before October 1, 

1892, $2,552.50. 

Changes in name Packers' Indemnity Exchange, from 

April 1. 1892. to January, 1893. 
The Indemnity Exchange, from Janu- 
ary, 1893, to date. 
Articles of association, when filed with 

the department September 2, 1902. 

Edgcomb classification Entitled to transact business. 

References to attorney-general and 

legal proceedings against, if any. . . None. 

Kind of insurance written Fire. 

Subscribers' deposits. December 31, 

1908 Initial deposits, $59,100. 

Premium income, 1908 $171,596.48. 

Amount of insurance in force Decem- 
ber 31, 1908 $15,512,436. 

All the business of this organization, is transacted through the 
Chicago office and since May, 1908, the organization has had no 
office in this state. From the time of its organization to date a 
considerable business has been transacted and it was undoubtedly 
doing the business of fire insurance on October 1, 1892. 

The policies are issued by virtue of an agreement subscribed to 
by each of the policyholders, authorizing the managers, as their 
attorneys-in-fact, to effect the insurances in their respective names 
as the underwriters thereof, in several amounts for each of them, 
according to their respective subscriptions. 

The " subscription " by each policyholder is the amount which 
he stipulates shall be the maximum sum to be underwritten in his 



The Indemnity Exchange 139 

name on any single risk. There is no limitation to a policy- 
holder's liability ; it being the aggregate of the sums underwritten 
in his name under all of the policies in force. 

The customary subscription (when a single property is covered) 
is $100, but larger amounts, not to exceed $500, are permissible 
where the subscriber has several properties to be covered. 

By reason of each policyholder stipulating that the amount of 
his subscription shall be the maximum sum underwritten in his 
individual name on any single risk, the maximum line that may 
be covered on any risk is accordingly limited thereby not to exceed 
the aggregate of all the policyholders' subscriptions. In practice 
the maximum line is less, however, having been limited by the 
managers to $50,000' for the purposes of average. Furthermore, 
this maximum line of $50,000 is written only on sprinkler- 
equipped risks. All the risks are classified and the average line is 
a much less amount than the maximum enabled by the subscrip- 
tions. 

On executing the underwriting agreement each policyholder de- 
posits in cash a sum equal to the subscription nominated by him, 
and in his agreement it is stipulated that he shall upon demand 
deposit such additional sums as may be required, at any times, to 
defray any underwriting obligations incurred by him in excess of 
accretions to his credit from premium incomes. 

The policies are issued at the stock insurance companies' rates 
of premium. From these premiums are paid to the policyholders 
fifteen per cent, as dividends or allowances and each policyholder is 
also permitted by the agreement to withdraw all funds to his credit 
at the end of each calendar year, in his underwriting account, in 
excess of the amount of his subscription. 

The management expenses are fixed by the agreement at twenty 
per cent, of the premiums. The funds are under the control of 
trustees (who are also an advisory committee) elected annually 
by the policyholders. Investments are not permitted. Bi-monthly 
bulletins are sent to the policyholders and none may be a policy- 
holder who is not approved by all the policyholders. 

The financial statement of this organization, as of December 
31, 1908, as filed in the insurance department, shows: 



110 Lloyds Kepokt 

ASSETS 

Cash in bank $64, 226 84 

Gross premiums in course of collection representing business 

written subsequent to October 1, 1908 23, 516 56 

Subscribers' deposits in course of collection 27, 537 26 

Gross assets $115, 280 66 

DEDUCT ASSETS NOT ADMITTED 
Subscribers' deposits in course of collection 27, 537 26 



Total admitted assets $87, 743 40 



LIABILITIES 

Unearned premiums $70. 818 94 

Dividends unpaid 3, 527 48 

Salaries and other miscellaneous expenses due or accrued 2, 160 12 

Total liabilities $76, 506 54 



This organization is composed of about 300 inter-insurers and 
as the members are constantly changing no list is given. 



Names of Lloyds Associations 141 



OTHER LLOYDS WHICH FILED COPIES OF 
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION 

TSTiiie other " Lloyds " associations filed copies of their articles 
of association in the insurance department before September 1, 
1902, pursuant to the provisions of section 57 of the insurance law. 
As they unquestionably have no right to transact the business of 
insurance in this state, on the ground of illegal organization, your 
examiner has made no report thereon. Only one (Inter-Insurers 
of America) has ever filed an annual report in the- insurance de- 
partment and this one did not file a report for the year ending 
December 31, 1908. Your examiner does not believe that any of 
the associations are now transacting business, and he has been un- 
able to ascertain their present location or the name of their attor- 
neys-in-fact, if there are such. The associations in this class are 
the following: 

Crescent Lloyds, German American Fire and Marine Lloyds of 
New York, Hudson River Fire Lloyds of New York City, Im- 
perial Fire Lloyds of New York, Inter-Insurers of America, Mon- 
tauk Lloyds of New York (restrained from the transaction of 
business; see opinion of Judge Truax in Appendix B), Protec- 
tion Fire Lloyds, Standard Lloyds (restrained from transacting- 
business by judgment entered in Albany county, New York, March 
14, 1904), United Underwriters of the City of New York (re- 
strained from transacting business by judgment entered in Albany 
county, New York, March 14, 1904). 

Names of Lloyds 
The following are the names of all Lloyds associations or or- 
ganizations of inter-insurers ever used by any of the associations 
or organizations, which filed their articles of association with the 
department prior to September 1, 1902, together with the names 
now used. 

Allied Underwriters at New York and Chicago Lloyds. 
American Exchange Underwriters. 



112 Lloyds Report 

American Fire Insurance Lloyds (now Assurance Lloyds of 

America). 
American Lloyds (now Underwriters at American Lloyds). 
Associated Underwriters at South and North American Lloyds 

(now Union Underwriters of Xew York). 
Assurance Lloyds of America. 

Brewers and Maltsters Underwriters at Xew York Central Lloyds 
(now New York Central Lloyds). 

Commercial Lloyds (now Xew York Commercial Underwriters). 
Consolidated Underwriters of the City of Xew York (now Inter- 
Insurers of America). 
Crescent Lloyds. 

Electric City Lloyds (now Mercantile Lloyds of Xew York City). 
Equitable Fire Lloyds (now National Underwriters of America). 

Fidelity Insurance Association. 

Firemen's Fire Lloyds (now Lloyds, Xew York). 

Fire Association of Xew York (now Union Underwriters). 

Garfield Assurance Fire Lloyds. 

German American Fire and Marine Lloyds of Xew York. 

Great Western Lloyds (correct title Underwriters at Great West 

ern Lloyds). 
Guardian Fire Lloyds (now Union Underwriters). 

Home Protective Fire Underwriters (now Xew York and New 

England Underwriters at Lloyds of Xew York City). 
Hudson River Fire Lloyds of Xew York City. 

Imperial Fire Lloyds of Xew York. 

International Lloyds (now Underwriters at Grt at Western 

Lloyds). 
Indemnity Exchange ( The ) . 
Individual Underwriters. 
Insurers Alliance of the City of Xew York (now Xew York 

Insurance Association). 
Insurers Alliance of Xew York (now Xew York Insurance 

Association). 
Inter-Insurers of America. 
International Fire Office of Xew York City. 
Isthmus Lloyds of the City of Xew York. 

Jefferson Fire Lloyds (now Lloyds, Xew York). 
Lenox Fire Llovds (now International Fire Office of Xew York 
City). 



Names of Lloyds Associations 148 

Lloyds, New York. 

Lloyds of New York City (now American Exchange Under- 
writers). 

Lumber Underwriters. 

Lumber Underwriters at Mutual Lloyds (now Lumber Under- 
writers). 

Majestic Fire Association (now American Exchange Under- 
writers). 

Manufacturers Lloyds. 

Mechanics and Marine Lloyds (now Inter-Insurers of America). 

Mercantile Lloyds (now Fidelity Insurance Association). 

Mercantile Lloyds of New York City. 

Mercantile Lloyds of New York (now Mercantile Lloyds of New 
York City). 

Mercantile and Guarantee Fire Association (now Fidelity In- 
surance Association). 

Merchants Fire Lloyds. 

Merchants and Mechanics Fire Lloyds (now International Fire 
Office of New York city). 

Metropolitan Lloyd? (now Mercantile Lloyds of New York City). 

Mont auk Fire Lloyds. 

National Underwriters of America. 

New York Central Lloyds. 

New York and Chicago Lloyds (now Allied Underwriters at New 

York and Chicago Lloyds). 
^ew York Commercial Underwriters. 
New York Fire Lloyds. 
New York Insurance Association. 
New York and New England Underwriters at Lloyds of New 

York City. 
New York Reciprocal LTnderwriters. 

North American Inter-Insurers of the City of New York. 
North American Lloyds (now North American Inter-Insurers of 

the City of New York). 

Old Colony Fire Office (now Lloyds, New Y r ork). 

Packers Indemnity Exchange (now The Indemnity Exchange") . 
Protection Fire Lloyds. 

Seaboard Fire Underwriters (now Lloyds, New York). 

South and North American Lloyds (now Union Underwriters of 

New York). 
Spanish and American Fire Association (now Allied Underwriters 

at New York and Chicago Lloyds). 



144 Lloyds Kepoet 

Standard Lloyds. 

Subscribers at United States Lloyds. 

Syracuse Mutual Fire Underwriters at New York Central Lloyds 
(now New York Central Lloyds). 

Underwriters at Great Western Lloyds. 

Underwriters at Mutual Lloyds (now Lumber Underwriters). 
Underwriters at New York and Boston Lloyds. 
Union Fire and Marine Underwriters. 
Union Underwriters. 
Union Underwriters of New York. 
. United Underwriters of the City of New York. 

Waldorf Fire Lloyds (now Union Underwriters). 



IV 
"LLOYDS" ASSOCIATIONS AND INTER-INSURERS 

IN OTHEE STATES 

Under date of June 1, 1909, the superintendent of insurance 
sent to the insurance departments of the various states the follow- 
ing letter : 

Deae Sib. — This department is now making a general 
investigation into the condition and affairs of the various 
Lloyds associations and individual underwriters transacting 
the business of insurance in this state. 

I desire to ascertain the attitude of your department and 
the laws of your state regarding these associations and their 
maimer of transacting insurance business. 

By " Lloyds " associations is meant groups of individual 
underwriters writing insurance for the public generally and 
assuming an individual liability. 

1. Do the laws of your state permit the organization or 
admission to do business in your state of " Lloyds " asso- 
ciations, and if so, under what conditions, and how are they 
regulated % 

2. What is the attitude of your department toward the 
method by which " Lloyds " associations transact business ? 

3. Are associations doing a strictly inter-insurance busi- 
ness, where every policyholder is an underwriter on every 
other policy, permitted to organize or admitted to do business 
in your state, and if so, under what conditions ? 

Respectfully yours, 

William H. Hotchkiss, 

Superintendent of Insurance 

From the replies thus far received, the attitude of the other 
state departments toward " Lloyds " associations and inter-insur- 
ance associations and the method by which they are regulated by 
the laws of the several states are as follows : 



146 Lloyds Report 

The laws of the following states or territories have no reference 
to "Lloyds" associations or Inter-Insurers organizations: 

Alaska, District of Columbia, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Xew 
Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota. Texas, West 
Virginia. 

In the following states or territories " Lloyds " associations 
cannot be organized nor can like associations of other states or 
territories be admitted: 

Delaware, Indiana, Iowa. Xebraska. Xortk Dakota. Ohio, Ter- 
ritory of Hawaii, Utah. 

In the following states " Inter-Insurers " cannot be organized 
nor can like organizations of other states be admitted: 

Delaware. Indiana, Iowa. Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon. 

ALABAMA 

The insurance laws provide that " Lloyds " associations may 
be authorized to transact business of insurance, other than life, 
in like manner and upon the same terms and conditions as are 
required of and imposed upon insurance companies regularly 
organized, but all such " Lloyds " whether organized within this 
State or elsewhere, not having an actual paid-up cash capital, 
shall make the same deposit, and upon the same terms and con- 
ditions as required of foreign insurance companies incorporated 
or associated under the laws of any government or state other 
than the United States or one of the United States. Such asso- 
ciations would have to have a $100,000 capital, or in the absence 
of capital, $100,000 above all liabilities. The insurance com- 
missioner says : " Our laws not being very explicit in this con- 
nection we would undertake to restrict them in every way 
possible." 

ARKANSAS 

The question as to whether, under the laws of this state, 
" Lloyds Associations " or individual underwriters could be 
authorized to write insurance, and under what conditions, was 
some few years ago submitted to the attorney-general, who gave 
it as his opinion that before such associations could be authorized, 
each individual member would be required to have at least $50,000 
paid-up capital and file a bond in the sum of $20,000. 

It has been heretofore held by this department that a strict 
inter-insurance business could be done when confined exclusively 
to parties or insurers engaged in the same line of business, with- 



Summaries of the Laws of Various States 147 

out state supervision. However, since the passage in 1905 of 
statutes governing Mutual Fire Insurance, our attorney-general 
has rendered an opinion which incidentally touches this question 
and from which the logical inference arises, that these organiza- 
tions must comply with the Mutual Fire Law. 

COLORADO 

The commissioner of insurance says in answer to the questions 
asked in the department's letter : 

" First. — We are not certain whether or not our laws permit 
these organizations in this state, or the admission of k Lloyds 
Associations,' and have requested the attorney-general to furnish 
an opinion. Upon receipt of his advice we will write you 
further. 

" Second. — The department strongly objects to the methods 
employed by the ' Lloyds ' in securing business. Furthermore, 
our laws provide that all business secured in this state shall 
be obtained by companies duly authorized by this department, 
and through representatives having the proper agents 1 licenses. 
Their methods are simply tolerated, due to the fact that we can- 
not reach them by the law, as you well know they operate through 
the mails. 

" Third.- — We are of the belief that inter-insurance associations 
do not come under the jurisdiction of this department, therefore, 
such associations can organize or operate in this state." 

CONNECTICUT 

The insurance commissioner says : 

" Replying to your letter of June 1st, I would state that Lloyd 
Associations are not licensed to do business in this state. This 
department has never looked with favor upon this class of under- 
writers nor their method of transacting business. Our attitude 
in regard to this class of insurance business has been sustained by 
past experience as shown by their record. A few years ago there 
was an epidemic of Lloyds ; practically all have failed and claim- 
ants were able to recover only a portion of their claims against 
them. We understand that many of the Lloyds recently organ- 
ized are under good management and will undoubtedly pay claims 
to the best of their ability, but such institutions are offered un- 
desirable risks and with their facilities for investigating the 
character of the lines offered they cannot fail to get on their books 
? large percentage of undesirable business. We have no direct 
statutes in reference to Lloyds companies. Associations doing a 



148 Lloyds Report 

strictly inter-insurance business where every policyholder is an 
underwriter are not permitted to do business in this state." 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

The insurance commissioner says : 

" I am unalterably opposed to the methods by which ' Lloyds * 
associations transact business. 

" Inter-insurers cannot incorporate under our laws. I have re- 
fused to license or otherwise recognize ' Inter-Insurers ' associa 3 
tions, although they have been persistent in their efforts to receive 
recognition by this department. Our corporation counsel, who 
bears the same relation to this district as your attorney-general 
does to the state of New York, has rendered an opinion to the 
effect that they cannot operate here without being licensed." 

FLORIDA 

Section 2759 General Statutes of Florida provides that " ~No 
insurance company, association, firm or individual, not of this 
state, nor agent nor representative thereof, shall transact any 
business of insurance in this state, unless such company, asso- 
ciation, firm or individual is possessed of at least two hundred 
and fifty thousand dollars in value, invested in United States or 
state bonds, or other bankable interest bearing stock issued in the 
United States, at fheir market value." 

Lloyds associations and individuals transacting a similar busi- 
ness would be entitled to a certificate of authority in Florida- 
upon complying with the above and other provisions of the laws 
of this state governing insurance companies generally. 

GEORGIA 

The comptroller-general says : 

" In reply I beg to say that the laws of this state governing 
all classes of incorporated insurance companies are made appli- 
cable to individuals or associations engaged in like business. In 
other words the insurance laws of this state apply to individuals 
as well as corporations engaged in the insurance business." 

( 

ILLINOIS 

The insurance commissioner says in answer to the questions 
asked in the departments letter: 

"First. — The laws of this state are silent regarding the ad- 
mission of Lloyds associations. Under a decision of the Supreme 



Summaries of the Laws of Various States 149 

Court of this state found in volume 168 Illinois Reports at 
jpage 125, our Supreme Court ruled that the insurance laws of 
Illinois applied to corporations only, and that individuals, partner- 
ships, or associations had a right to transact an insurance business 
in this state without the authority or approval of this department. 

" Second. — As indicated above, this department does not attempt 
to regulate Lloyds associations except under what is known here 
as the Surplus Line Law, which applies to the fire insurance 
business, and under the terms of which agents in Chicago are 
issued a special license to place insurance in outside companies 
where the agent is unable to secure the line desired in admitted 
companies. 

" Third. — The ruling of the Supreme Court above referred "o 
applies to the inter-insurance people also." 

LOUISIANA 

Lloyds associations are not permitted to do business in this 
state, except for marine insurance when such associations are 
required to make a deposit of one hundred thousand dollars 
($100,000) for the benefit of its obligees. 

MAINE 

The insurance commissioner says : 

" Replying to your letter of June 1st, the laws of Maine, chap- 
ter 49, section 1, provide as follows : " * * * Associations of 
individuals now formed or which may hereafter be formed, upon 
the plan known as Lloyds, for the purpose of transacting marine 
insurance business, may exercise all rights, powers and privileges 
granted under the laws of this state." This is the only form 
of individual underwriting which is allowed by the laws of Maine, 
and it is the policy of this department to restrict rather than to 
encourage the business of associations of this nature." 

MARYLAND 

Section 164 of the insurance laws of this state provides : 

Associations of individuals, citizens of the United States. 
whether organized within the state, or elsewhere within the 
United States, formed upon the plan known as Lloyds, whereby 
each associate underwriter becomes liable for a proportionate 
part of the whole amount insured by a policy, may be authorized! 
te transact insurance other than life in this state, upon the 



150 Lloyds Report 

following conditions : That any such association organized in 
this state may be permitted to transact the insurance business 
upon the same terms and conditions as are by the laws of this 
state imposed upon an insurance company organized under the 
laws of this state, and any such association organized in any other 
of the United States may be permitted to transact its business in 
this state upon the same terms and conditions as are by the laws 
of this state imposed upon an insurance company incorporated in 
the state where such association was organized. 

MASSACHUSETTS 
The insurance commissioner says : 

" TTe are in receipt of yours of the 1st instant, relating to 
Lloyds associations, and in reply trust you will permit me to call 
your attention to the provisions of section 91 of chapter 576 of 
the Acts of T907, which you will find on page 107 in the pamphlet 
sent you by this mail under separate enclosure, and wdiieh reads 
as follows : 

" ' Section 91. — Associations of individuals, citizens of the 
United States, whether organized within this commonwealth 
or elsewhere within the United States, formed upon the plan 
known as Lloyds — whereby each associate underwriter be- 
comes liable for a proportionate part of the whole amount 
insured by a policy — ■ may be authorized to transact in- 
surance other than life in this commonwealth, in like mannej 
and upon the same terms and conditions as insurance com- 
panies of other of the United States. 7 

" In answer to paragraph 2 of your communication, I beg to 
advise that in dealing with Lloyds associations we require the 
' surplus to policyholders ' to be not less than the capital stock 
required of stock companies. 

"The third paragraph of your communication apparently relates 
to what, for the want of a better name, we call reciprocal under- 
writers and I am enclosing herewith for your information copy 
of a recent opinion from the attorney-general of this state con- 
cerning associations of that character. I might add that there 
are several organizations of said class, whose plans have recently 
been submitted to this department and which are now under con- 
sideration. TTe hold that the business cannot be carried on in 
this commonwealth except that any citizen thereof may become a 
member of such organization in another state." 



Summaries of the Laws of Various States 151 

MICHIGAN 
The insurance commissioner says : 

" I desire to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 1st 
instant, with inquiries concerning the law of this state relating 
to Lloyds associations. The business of the Lloyds associations 
in this state is regulated by act 134 of the public acts of 1895, 
being section 5135 of the Compiled Laws of 1897. You will find 
this statute on page 163 of the 1907 compilation of the Michigan 
insurance laws, a copy of which I think you have in your de- 
partment. The law applies alike to Lloyds associations in this 
state and elsewhere. Such associations are required to deposit 
with a bank or trust company of the LTnited States, approved by 
the commissioner of insurance of this state, $200,000 in cash or 
securities approved by the commissioner of insurance for the 
security and benefit of the holders of policies issued by them. 
Such associations are required to make annual reports the same 
as fire insurance companies, are subject to the same supervision 
as stock fire insurance companies and must pay taxes computed 
on the same basis as stock fire insurance companies. The atti- 
tude of this department concerning Lloyds associations is merely 
that the law relating to the business of such associations be com- 
plied with. 

" No inter-insurance organizations are at present authorized to 
transact business in Michigan and no such associations are or- 
ganized in this state.' 7 

MINNESOTA 

The commissioner of insurance says : 

" Replying to your inquiry of June 1st, permit me to say that 
/Lloyds associations' are authorized to do business in our state 
under section 1647, R. L. 1905, and section 36, chapter 175. 
laws of 1895, as amended by chapter 130, laws of 1905, copies of 
which I am enclosing herewith. 

" Question one of the letter is, I believe, fully answered by the 
laws quoted. 

" In reply to question two I would say that the Lloyds associa- 
tions transacting business here are on an entirely satisfactory 
basis. There are some associations transacting a small business 
here that are not authorized by the department, the business being 
placed by mail. We have tried to discourage this business in 
every way possible and there is not a large amount of it written 
here. 



152 Lloyds Report 

" In reply to question three permit me to say that companies, 
corporations, individuals, or associations transacting an insurance 
business must comply with all the requirements of law." 

The laws above referred to regarding Lloyds are as follows : 

u Lloyds." Authority to do business. — Any association 
of citizens of the United States, organized upon the plan 
known as " Lloyds " whereby each underwriter becomes 
liable for a proportionate amount of the whole amount in* 
surecl by a policy, shall be authorized to transact insurance, 
other than life, in this state, in such manner and on such 
terms as the commissioner may direct ; provided, that if such 
association shall be possessed of not less than fifty thousand 
dollars in cash on hand and guaranty subscriptions of the 
underwriters, after deducting all liabilities except reinsur- 
ance reserve, and that such net cash on hand shall be equal 
to the reinsurance reserve, calculated on a basis of fifty per 
cent of the premiums in force, and that satisfactory evidence 
shall be furnished to the commissioner that the underwriters 
are men of good financial standing, responsible for their 
obligations, and that the association does not issue policies 
of insurance on any one risk to a greater aggregate amount 
than one-fifth of the total subscriptions of the several under- 
writers, or of the amount to which they may become liable, 
the commissioner shall license them under requirements simi-k 
lar to those prescribed in this act for the admission of foreign 
mutual fire companies, so far as the same may reasonably 
apply. (K. L. '05 s. 1647). 

Same. Additional powers. — Associations of individuals, 
citizens of the United States, whether organized within this 
state or elsewhere, within the United States, formed upon 
the plan known as Lloyds, whereby each associate under- 
writer becomes liable for a proportionate part of the wholo 
amount insured by a policy, may be authorized to transact 
insurance other than life in this state in such manner and 
on such terms as the insurance commissioner may direct, 
providing that if such organization shall be possessed of 
cash on hand and guaranteed subscriptions of the under- 
writers after deducting all liabilities except reinsurance re- 
serve of a sum not less than $50,000 and that the net cash 
on hand shall be equal to the reinsurance reserve calculated 
on a basis of 50 per cent of the premiums in force, and 
that evidence shall be furnished to the insurance commis- 
sioner that the underwriters are men of good financial stand- 
ing, responsible for their obligations, and that the organiza- 



Summaries of the Laws of Various States 153 

tion does not issue policies of insurance on any one risk in 
greater sums than one-fifth of the aggregate of the sub- 
scriptions of the several underwriters or the amount to whichi 
they may become liable, the commissioner shall license them 
under similar requirements as are made and prescribed in 
this act for the admission of foreign mutual fire insurance 
companies so far as the same may reasonably apply. Said 
association of individuals known as Lloyds are herein ex- 
pressly authorized to transact insurance known as Sprinkler 
Leakage Insurance. ('95 c. 175 s. 36 as amended by '05 
c. 130). 

MISSISSIPPI 
The insurance commissioner says : 

" Replying to your favor of the 1st instant, I beg to advise 
that no fire company organized by any other state can do business 
in Mississippi unless it possesses a cash capital of $100,000. That 
precludes all such organizations as the Lloyds and inter-state 
companies. 

" One of these inter-state companies, possibly several, are under- 
taking to elo business in the state, and one at least is doing a 
large volume of business with the saw mills. I am contending 
that they are doing so in violation of law, and now have a case 
before the State Supreme Court to test that question. They 
contend they are not an insurance company, and are not subject 
to supervision by this department in any sense and cannot be 
made to pay any taxes. 

" I believe this contention to be not only unsound, but vicious 
in the extreme, and that if the Supreme Court upholds the con- 
tention it will open the flood gates, and that the state will be 
overrun by wildcats of high and low degree. 

" The company contends that I am the only insurance commis- 
sioner who has ever had the temerity of carrying a case of that 
kind before a court of last resort, the other commissioners having 
thrown up their hanels on the first fire. Don't know whether 
that contention is true or not, but if so, when our court renders 
its opinion, there will at least be that much precedent. I believe 
I shall win the case. 

" It is styled the Insurance Commissioner vs. The Manufactur- 
ing Lumbermen's Underwriters, with headquarters at Kansas 
City. It confines its business exclusively to the saw mill people." 



154 Lloyds Report 

MISSOURI 

The superintendent of insurance says : 

" Under the laws of this state, as construed by our Supreme 
Court in the case of State vs. Stone, 118 Mo. 388, associations 
of individuals not incorporated may engage in the business of 
insurance in this state upon compliance with the requirements 
of the law, so far as the same are applicable. I am informed, 
however, that Lloyds associations are operated in this state, 
especially in the large cities thereof, without any pretense of a 
compliance with the insurance laws. And the attitude of this 
department will be to prosecute such persons for doing an in- 
surance business without a license, and for soliciting insurance 
for an unauthorized company." 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

The insurance commissioner of this state, in answer to depart- 
ments letter, says: 

" This department does not recognize them as insurance com- 
panies and has declined to issue licenses to them for the transac 
tion of insurance business in the state. 

" ~No insurance company of any kind can be organized under 
our general laws. A special act of the legislature or charter is 
necessary in each case." 

NEW JERSEY 

The Xew Jersey laws provide that to organize, a Lloyds asso- 
ciation must be composed of not less than twenty members. 
" possessing each in his individual right in value not less than 
twenty thousand dollars of personal property and real estate, 
situate within this state, above all incumbrances." It is also 
provided that said association shall " file in the office of said com- 
missioner a statement in writing of the name and residence in 
this state of some person or persons on whom legal notice and 
process may be served, and renew such statement whenever 
required." 

And that " whenever the commissioner of banking and insur- 
ance finds as the result of examination or by any statement filed 
as aforesaid, that any Lloyds association of !New Jersey have a 
less sum than forty thousand dollars on hand over all claims and 
liabilities, which have been doing business one year, it shall be 
Lis duty to serve a thirty days' notice upon the attorney or attor- 
neys that if the amount is not increased to the said sum of forty 
thousand dollars required by this act, the charter of such Lloyds 



Summaries of the Laws of Various States 155 

shall be forfeited to the state ;" and it is further required that 
such subscribers shall " deposit with their attorney or attorneys 
before the issuing of any policies by any such associations known 
as Lloyds the sum of forty thousand dollars in cash or securities 
invested in the same manner as now or hereafter required by the 
general insurance laws of this state/' 

" Xo fire Lloyds organized in this state prior to this act shall 
be permitted to do business in this state. 77 

NORTH CAROLINA 

The insurance commissioner says, in answer to the questions in 
the departments letter : 

"First. — We have no Lloyds association now licensed to do 
business in this state. Under our law they will be required to 
qualify and comply with our laws just as other mutual insurance 
companies. 

" Second. — \Ve have never been very favorable to the -' Lloyds ' 
associations and have never been anxious to admit them to do 
business in this state. 

" Third. — Associations doing strictly an inter-insurance busi- 
ness are required to comply with the laws and pay the licenses, 
fees and taxes just as other insurance companies and associations. 
In other words our law in its definition of insurance companies 
includes companies, associations and persons doing any kind of 
insurance or guaranteeing to each other." 

NORTH DAKOTA 

The commissioner of insurance states that there is no law 
under which a Lloyds association could qualify or be licensed to 
transact business. 

PENNSYLVANIA 

" Lloyds " associations or " inter-insurers " organizations can- 
not be organized nor can associations from other states be licensed 
to do any other kind of business except marine, and then only 
upon the same basis as would be required of a joint stock com- 
pany to transact the same class of business. 

RHODE ISLAND 

All corporations, including Lloyds associations, are required to 
secure a charter by special act of the legislature. 

As to the admission of Lloyds, the attorney-general has ruled 
that they must comply with the provisions of law contained in 



156 Lloyds Report 

section 8 of chapter 182 of the general laws passed in 1896, re- 
quiring all fire insurance companies to have a capital stock of 
at least $100,000 and that the original deposit made by the sub- 
scribers to Lloyds could be considered as in the nature of a capital 
stock but these funds must be invested according to law. Only 
one Lloyds has been admitted to do business in this state. A 
very careful investigation is made of the personnel of the asso- 
ciation, their record as underwriters, and their ability to meet 
their obligations. 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

The laws of this state permit the organization and the doing 
of insurance business by Lloyds associations under the same 
conditions of license fees, supervision, deposit of securities or 
bond as apply to corporations. ~No " Lloyds " associations are 
now doing business in this state under license. 

TENNESSEE 

The deputy insurance commissioner says : 

" I have your favor of the 1st, and in reply to your inquiries 
beg to say: 

" First. — The laws of Tennessee permit the organization or ad- 
mission to do business in this state, of ' Lloyds ' associations. 
The terms on which they are admitted are found on page 15. 
section 15 of the Tennessee Insurance Laws, a copy of which I 
send you under other cover. 

a Stock fire insurance companies with $100,000 capital paid up, 
are admitted, and where Lloyds have deposits by underwriters of 
$100,000 or more we admit them without any additional deposit, 
considering the deposit by underwriters as the capital stock, w T hich 
we require to be kept unimpaired. 

" Second. — We have never had any occasion to be unfriendly 
to the Lloyds associations as their business in this state has been 
entirely satisfactory. We have no particular objection to that 
particular method of doing a fire insurance business. 

" Third. — Our laws do not permit inter-insurance associations 
to be organized in this state nor do they permit such associations 
to do business in this state." 

TERRITORY OF HAWAII 

The insurance commissioner reports that there is nothing in the 
insurance laws of the territory to permit the organization or 
admission of Llovds associations. 



Summaries of the Laws of Various States 157 

UTAH 

The commissioner of insurance says: 

" I am not in favor of permitting such organizations to trans- 
act business. There is, in my judgment, a greater degree of 
safety to the insuring public in corporations duly organized for 
the purposes of insurance, with capital and surplus and abundant 
reserve/' 

WASHINGTON 

The only " Lloyds " association authorized to transact business 
in this state is treated as a stock company. 

WISCONSIN 

The insurance commissioner says: 

" Replying to your inquiry of the 1st inst. in regard to the atti- 
tude of this department toward the Lloyds associations, and the 
laws relating to same. Section 1945g of our statutes authorizes 
persons and corporations of this state to become members of Lloyds 
associations, provided that the association maintains an office in 
this state. The attorney-general has held that this did not author- 
ize such association to issue a policy to any person not a member. 

" Lloyds marine insurance is provided for by section 1978f to 
1978m, chapter 249, laws of 1901. This authorizes the organiza- 
tion of a Lloyds association within this state to be licensed by the 
commissioner and required to pay a two per cent, tax on the gross 
premiums. 

" Section 1915 of the statutes, paragraph 1, provides that Lloyds 
may be admitted by complying in all respects with the laws ap- 
plicable to fire insurance corporations organized under the laws of 
any foreign government. Such associations are operating in this 
state and so far this department has made no investigation of the 
subject." 

Conclusion 

It has not been thought proper to supplement this report with 
any recommendations; nor is it asserted that it contains all of the 
facts concerning Lloyds associations claiming to do business in 
New York. 

Respectfully submitted, 

John L. Train, 

Special Examiner. 



158 Lloyds Repoet 



APPENDIX A 

The following affidavits indicate the facts brought out by the 
Sherer-Riehards investigations as to the Parson's charters, and the 
methods of those who manufactured false or fake charters in 1894 
and 1895. 

Affidavit of William H. Beodeeick 
In case of People v. Loew et al. 
City axd County of Xew Yoek, ss. : 

William H. Beodeeick, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

I am in the employ of the district attorney's office and have been 
since May, 1893, and reside at Ko. 169 Eighth avenue, Xew York 
city. 

I am personally acquainted with Fred H. Parson and George 
W. Holt. In the year 1892 I had some business with Parson, who 
was in the insurance business and for whom I endeavored to and 
did obtain some fire insurance business. George W. Holt was the 
bookkeeper for Fred H. Parson at that time. In February or 
March, 1892, Parson came to me and told me that there was a law 
going to be passed at Albany. He told me about a Mr. Kennedy, 
of Weed & Kennedy, going to Albany to have a law passed doing 
away with the Lloyds organizations after a certain date, and he 
said : " I would just like to get ahead of this fellow. I know that 
he has got himself protected. I want to get ahead of this fellow 
and show him that we are as smart as he is " (or words. to that 
effect). 

He asked me to be one of the organizers of a number of Lloyds. 
I asked him what his reasons for the number were, and he told me 
he was going to operate them on a royalty throughout the country. 
I asked him if he meant throughout the country or throughout the 
state, and he said he meant throughout the country, in Chicago 
and elsewhere. " Well," I said, " as far as my responsibility in 
this matter is, what would it be ? " and he said he would guaranty 
me against any loss that I might incur. In other words, he told 
me that it was a matter of accommodation to him, my going into 
these Lloyds.. "Next day I went to Parson's office and saw a speci- 
men of the papers to be used for the organization of these Lloyds. 



Affidavit of William H. Brodeeick 159 

After that George W. Holt, Parson and myself went down to the 
office of P. W. Angel. 

Parson carried a hand satchel when we went down to Angel's 
office, and he either carried the papers in the satchel or they were 
there Avhen we got there. Angel's office was near the Produce Ex- 
change. At Angel's office I executed and acknowledged about 
thirty sets of those papers with Holt and Parson. We were there 
at Angel's office about four hours. Parson would sign a paper. 
pass it to me, I would sign it and pass it to Holt, he would sign 
it and then the notary would take each of our acknowledgments 
very carefully, asking us if Ave acknowledged the papers. 

There were so many of them that they took up all the time we 
were there. I looked at the first paper to see whether it corre- 
sponded to what I had seen in Parson's office, and after that I did 
not look at them, nor did I look at the names of the Lloyds that 
Ave were organizing. Subsequently, upon receiving notices from 
Par sou, I attended a number of meetings and at various times 
afterward I resigned from various Lloyds organizations, the pa- 
pers of which I had signed. Parson issued a policy on my house- 
hold furniture in one of these Lloyds and he also told me that he 
issued a policy to a granite company that had its office Avith him. 
I know that there were many more policies issued, but cannot state 
the number. I do not noAV remember what the amount of any of 
these policies was, nor how many of them there were. I did not 
understand that I gave Parson full authority to issue any amount 
of policies in my name, but I did understand that when these 
Lloyds were organized I signed powers of attorney to him to write 
insurance in my name in each of these organizations. I never re- 
ceived any money from any of this insurance business in any of 
these Lloyds, except that on three occasions, I think, when I at- 
tended meetings he handed me a five dollar bill telling me ft was 
a fee to which I was entitled for attending the meetings. I can- 
not now remember the proceedings at these meetings. At these 
various meetings I never put any motion, but, at Parson's or 
Holt's request to do so, I seconded motions made by them. The 
three of us were present at the meetings and also Avhen there AA r ere 
transfers to be made, the other people Avere present. I do not re- 
member the names of any of these Lloyds, and I simply did only 
what Parson asked me to do in these matters, he telling me very 
often that he would guarantee me against any liability or re- 
sponsibility that would attach to me. I never received one dollar 
as part of the price for transferring these organizations to other 
people, and I never received any premium moneys from the or- 
ganizations. I do not recollect the time when the transfers of 
these organizations began, but it Avas some time after May, 1893. 



160 Lloyds Bepobt 

I took no part in any discussion which may have been had in rela- 
tion to waiting until the condition of the fire insurance business 
should grow better, except to listen to what was said by Holt and 
Parson. I cannot now recall the terms of any such discussion. I 
have never seen anything of Holt since these various meetings. I 
have never asked Parson after these transfers were made whether 
there was any money in it for me. I did not know that he got any 
money from them, except that I remember a check was once 
handed to me for my endorsement. I did not know who was the 
maker of the check nor the amount of it. 

TVillia^i H. Beodeeick. 
Sworn to before me this 6th day 
of May, 1896. 

JoHX JeXKIXS, Je. 

Xotary Public Kings County. 

Affidavit oe David Vaxdeegaw 
City axd Couxtt of Xew Yoek, ss; 

David Yaxdeegaw, being duly sworn, deposes and says : I am 
eow residing at Parmingdale, Long Island. I am sixty years of 
age and I have been living at Parmingdale for the past three years. 
Immediately prior to that time I lived at Jamaica, Long Island. 
for four or five years, and prior to that time I lived at Queens. 
Long Island. 

Some time during the year IS 91, I was introduced by Herbert 
L. Smith to Graham McAdam, as being Smith's attorney. I had 
known Smith before that time as will more connectedly be shown 
hereafter. This introduction took place in the office of Graham 
ALcAdam, in the Morse Building, on Xassau street. The persons 
present at this interview were Smith, ALcAdam and myself. 

Before going to ALeAdam's office, I had a conversation about 
getting a set of papers showing organizers of a Lloyds insurance 
company prior to 1892. This was with Smith. I was to furnish 
two men who were to appear as original underwriters, and I thin]? 
I was to be the third. 

The substance of the conversation had between us at ATcAdanr's 
office was to the effect that I was to furnish two men who were to 
appear as original organizers of the company, together with my- 
self, and ATcAclam and Smith were to furnish the notary who 
would take acknowledgments of these three original organizers as 
of 1892. It was further agreed that the three of us should divide 
equally the money received from the sale of the charter. The pa- 
pers were ready in ALeAdam's office when I got there. After this 



Affidavit of David Vandergaw. 161 

conversation, Smith, McAdam and myself went to a saloon and 
restaurant on Spruce street. I went ahead with the two men 
whom I brough for organizers and who had waited outside of 
the Morse Building while we were in McAdam's office. Smith and 
McAdam followed me bringing the papers and also brought the 
notary. I do not know the name of the notary. I have never seen 
him since or before. The two men whom I brought with me were 
James Boylan and Philip Morrison. 

When we reached the restaurant or saloon, we signed the papers, 
that is, Boylan, Morrison and myself, as of 1892, and the notary 
took the acknowledgments as of the year 1892. The notary signecl 
the certificate of acknowledgment there, I think, but am not posi- 
tive as to this. 

These charters were subsequently sold to the law firm of Miles 
& Stapleton, as I am informed by McAdam. McAdam informed 
me, to the best of my recollection, that Smith negotiated the sale. 
I did not receive any of the purchase money, and McAdam in- 
formed me that he did not receive any, and McAdam was anxious 
that I should have Smith arrested for appropriating my share 
of the money received for the charter. I paid Boylan and Mor- 
rison ten dollars each for signing the papers. The money was 
handed by Smith to me, and I handed them each ten dollars. I 
did not see the notary paid, but he was paid there. 

Shortly after this, and still in 1894, Smith started an office 
with Frank W. Anthony, either in Pine or Cedar street, as insur- 
ance brokers. While Smith and Anthony were keeping this office, 
I called several times on Smith to collect my share of the pur- 
chase price of the other charter. Smith put me off from time to 
time but paid me nothing. 

Then Smith left Anthony and started in business with liege- 
man in the City Fire Lloyds Insurance Company on Pine street. 
Smith assisted me to get up the charter for the City Fire Lloyds. 
Smith furnished the papers for this City Fire Lloyds and I signed 
them myself, signing Ira S. Gardner, John E. Oakes and Isaac 
M. Hathaway. I signed them with my own hand. Louis Canale 
acknowledged them at 81 Centre street. I had known Canale 
some time before I took the papers in to him, and he signed the ac- 
knowledgment. I was the only man that appeared before him at 
the time of the acknowledgment. I paid him seventy-five cents. 
I paid him twenty-five cents for each acknowledgment. After he 
signed the acknowledgments I took the papers to Smith in his 
office on Pine street and delivered them to him there. Smith 
paid me fifty dollars for the papers, part of which he paid at the 
time of the delivery and part subsequently. I never thought it 
was for the City Fire Lloyds. 



162 Lloyds Eepokt 

I used to meet this Louis Cauale, notary, about two years be- 
fore the time of these occurrences that I have mentioned. I have 
had my notary work done by an Italian banker on Centre street,. 
who had an office near Canale's and it was through him that I 
learned of Canale. On one occasion I called at his office when he- 
was not in and I was referred by one of his clerk's to Canale's at 
84 Centre street and since then Canale has taken the acknowledg- 
ments and done the work. When Canale moved from 84 Centre- 
street Smith looked him up at his new address. 

The next transaction in regard to Lloyds companies was had by 
me with Frank W. Anthony. Anthony's office, at that time, was 
in the Franklin building, in Brooklyn. This w r as also in 1894. 

I first met Anthony in Smith's office in Cedar street in 1894. 

Smith introduced me to him there. Shortly after I was intro- 
duced to Anthony who sent for me. I think he wrote me asking 
me to call at his office in the Franklin Building. I called there.. 
He had a young lady typewriter there and a boy in his office. The 
typewriters were changed several time while I was doing business 
with him. At this interview he wanted me to get up a set of 
Lloyds insurance company papers and wanted to know what it 
would charge. I told him that I would get up a set and charge 
him fifty dollars. Anthony furnished the original of these papers. 
They were typewritten. At this first interview he said he would 
have the papers ready in a few clays. Two or three days after- 
ward I called at Anthony's office again. The papers were ready 
and I took them. I then signed them and had them acknowledged 
before Canale and paid him as before, twenty-five cents for each 
acknowledgment. The names I used w r ere the same as before. 
Gardner, Oakes and Hathaway. I then took them to Anthony 
and he paid me fifty dollars. When Anthony handed me the pa- 
pers, the name of the insurance company was filled in, but I am 
not positive as to the name. It was afterward the Brooklyn Lloyds, 
I think, but I think the name originally put in was different. I 
had never filed it with the papers I delivered to Anthony. 

After that I got up several sets of Lloyds insurance company 
papers and sold them to Anthony. He paid me $25 or $50 for 
each set of papers. 

I think the next set of papers gotten up by me were the Etna 
Lloyds. These papers were signed in the same names, Gardner, 
Oakes and Hathaway, acknowledged by Canale on the same terms 
and in the same manner as in previous cases. The papers were 
prepared by Anthony, as before. Anthony also prepared the policy. 

The articles of agreement, power of attorney, etc., were all in 
typewriting. The policy was printed. He gave me the name of a 



Affidavit of David Vandeegaw. 163 

printer in Adams street, Brooklyn. When I delivered the papers 
of the Etna Life, Anthony told me that he would have to give me 
a note for it. He gave me a note of the company for five hundred 
dollars. The note was signed by the attorneys for the company, 
Nugent & Tyndall. I think it was a three or four month's note. 
They failed before it came due. I never collected anything on 
the note. Anthony never paid me anything for the Etna papers. 
After that I prepared three or four sets for him with the same 
names, and acknowledged as before, by Canale. He furnished the 
typewritten articles of agreement, etc., also printed policies. 

I continued to furnish Anthony these papers from time to time 
until 1896. 

I think he sold one set of papers in Buffalo. 
Among the papers furnished by me I think were those of the 
Columbia Lloyds. 

At the time we were negotiating with the Etna Lloyds, Smith 
went in and told the Etna people, Nugent & Tyndall, as I am 
informed, by McAdam, that the papers were bogus. McAdam told 
him that if he would straighten it out he would give him a 
share of the proceeds. He received a note from Nugent & Tyndall 
for $500. Smith did some negotiating with Nugent & Tyndall, 
appearing as attorney, or something, and induced them to accept 
the papers and to deliver the notes. 

I suppose, altogether, I furnished Anthony about six sets of 
papers. 

The set of papers which is first referred to in this affidavit 
were the set of papers of the Lloyds Company established by Mc- 
Adam at William street, corner of Maiden lane. This set of 
papers was signed by me with the same names, and acknowledged 
by me as before. McAdam gave me a note for these papers and 
the note is now in the hands of a lawyer who formerly had an 
office at 115 Nassau street. 

After that I gave McAdam three or four sets of papers which he 
said he had out among parties for sale and for which he never 
paid me, although I have heard that he sold them. 

The papers prepared by McAdam were typewritten by a type- 
writer on the top floor of the Bennet Building whose name, I 
think, is Hill. 

My negotiations with McAdam in regard to these charters were 
all had in his private office. 

McAdam had a typewriter in his office. His son was typewriter 
for him. 

I also sold, in the year 1891-5. to Hegeman, four sets of papers, 
two of which were sold to Geo. 'H. Quennard afterward. 



164 Lloyds Report 

The two sets that were sold to Canard I received my pay in the 
shape of a draft or check. I do not know what became of the 
drafts. 

In addition to the names Gardner, Oakes and Hathaway, I 
signed some sets of papers with the names of Robinson and Arnold, 
but one time I furnished Wolf with a set of papers which he kept 
for some time and attempted to sell, but did not sell. These papers 
were signed Gardner, Oakes, Hathaway, Robinson and Arnold. 

At one time I prepared a set of papers for Smith, in which 
Boylan and myself appeared as organizers. Ensign signed this 
paper. These papers were prepared by Smith. I don't recollect 
what became of them. 

In the year 1892, a number of notes were signed by me under 
the name of Isaac N". Hathaway and given by me to Wm. Wolf. 
Wolf told me that he had a party in Philadelphia who could nego- 
tiate the notes and it was agreed between us. They were sent to 
Philadelphia to a man by the name of RTorthrop, who I didn't 
know at that time, but whom I afterward met in Wolf's office. 
I do not know what disposition was subsequently made of the 
notes. 

I think I also gave some of the same notes to E. F. Stafford. 
I don't know what Stafford did with them. 

The signatures of Gardiner, Oakes and Hathaway, following, 
are in my own proper handwriting. 

Ira S. Gardiner, 
John E. Oakes, 
Isaac M. Hathaway. 

I have read carefully the foregoing affidavit and am fully aware 
of its contents. It consists of about eight and one-half pages. 

D. Yandergaw. 
Sworn to before me this 24th 
clay of August, 1896. 

Joe C. Bryan, 

Commissioner of Deeds, New York County. 

Affidavit of Joseph Hegemax 



ork.1 

S^G'S, J 



State of New York 
County of Kin 

Joseph Hegeman, beinc; duly sworn, deposes and says: 
I am now in the Kings County Penitentiary and I formerly re- 
sided at Bayville, Long Island, where I was United States post- 
master. 

I am personally acquainted with David Yandergaw, F. E. Yail. 
Hubert L. Smith, Frank Anthony and Graham McAdam. I met 



Affidavit of Joseph Hegeman 165 

them all in March, 1894, except Yail whom I met in the winter 
following. I was introduced to Vandergaw, Smith and Anthony 
by one Samuel Welsch, who afterward became my partner as 
managers of the Empire State Fire Lloyds. The charter or 
rights of the Empire State Eire Lloyds were purchased from 
Smith, Anthony and Vandergaw. Graham McAdam represented 
them at the sale. I annex hereto a copy of the assignment by tha 
so-called original subscribers to the Empire State Fire Lloyds, 
marked Exhibit A, which I produce from among my private 
papers. 

About February, 1895, I began to sell, or endeavor to sell, so- 
called Lloyds charters owned or controlled by Vandergaw. I ob- 
tained all these charters from Vandergaw direct. I obtained prob- 
ably a dozen from him and sold probably half a dozen. Most of 
these charters were delivered to me in person by Vandergaw, in 
Vail's office, at No. 140 Nassau street, room 39. 

McAdam has an office in 140 Nassau street, in the same build- 
ing with Vail. I don't recollect the names of the so-called Lloyds 
charters which I sold, but I can identify three, namely : The Fnl- 
ton LTnderwr iters, sold to Mark Hart, the Crescent Lloyds, or 
Underwriters, sold to Mark Hart, and another, the name of which 
I cannot remember, sold to George H. Quennard, 307 Pearl street. 
New York city. All three of these I got from Vandergaw, and he 
got, or was to get, part of the purchase price. 

All three original articles and power of attorney purported to 
have been signed by Isaac M. Hathaway, John E. Oakes and Ira 
S. Gardiner, and to have been acknowledged before Louis Canale, 
as notary public. The price of the Fulton Underwriters was 
$125 ; of the Crescent $100, and of the charter sold to Quennard 
$110. 

Exhibits 13 and C hereto annexed are the articles and power of 
attorney of the so-called Standard Lloyds of New York, and policy 
No. 1 in said Standard Lloyds, which I produce from among my 
papers. This charter was given to me by Vandergaw for sale, but 
was never sold. The word " Standard " in Exhibit B, which was 
filled in, is in the handwriting of Vandergaw, written in my pres- 
ence. I believe that the signatures on the various Lloyds char- 
ters which passed through my hands were signed by Vandergaw 
himself. I know in one case that he signed some name or names 
to the articles or power of attorney of the Lloyds charter sold to 
George H. Quennard. As I recollect, this was some time in 
May, 1895. I remember distinctly meeting Vandergaw at Vail's 
office on this particular day and I told him I had a purchaser for 
this particular charter for $150 and wanted to know if lie would 
do better, as the party in question wanted to make something him- 



166 Lloyds Report 

self. Vandergaw says: " Is it spot cash?" I said ''Yes, cash 
C. O. D." Vandergaw said " Let it go at $100." I said I'll hold 
it at $125. Then he asked me when I could close and I told him 
in fifteen minutes after we got the charter. That was about ten 
thirty A. M. Vandergaw said " I think I can have the charter by 
one o'clock." I said " Better make it two, you may not make the 
connections you think you will and you had better make it two." 
He said " I think I can find a notary before that time." I sent 
word to Quennard that I would be at his office at two o'clock with 
the charter. Then, after Vandergaw said that he thought he could 
get the notary's signature in time, he took a package of papers or 
one of these charters from his pocket, opened them to the place 
where they were to be signed, glanced up at me, took a small bot- 
tle or vial of ink from the left top pocket of his vest and a pen 
from the right top pocket, glanced again at me and then signed a 
name or names to the paper. I was sitting about four feet to the 
left of Vandergaw ; he was at a flat top desk in Vail's office and I 
sat immediately against the end of the desk with my back to the 
wall at an angle from him and at a distance of about four feet. I 
had a newspaper in front of me and pretended to be reading it. I 
kept the paper low enough so that Vandergaw could see my eyes 
if he wanted to, but Vandergaw was not quite as young as I was 
and I could drop my eyes quicker than he could his. After sign- 
ing some name or names to the paper, Vandergaw returned the ink 
and pen to the pockets from which he took them. Vail was not in 
his office at the time Vandergaw signed the papers. Vail came 
in before we left. With another pen and ink that was upon Vail's 
old desk, Vandergaw filled in some spaces or names on the paper. 
He gave me all the papers except the one on which he had signed 
the names and said that as soon as he had it signed he would get 
the county clerk's certificate. That took up our time until about 
eleven o'clock. Then Vandergaw and I went down to 111 Broad- 
way in the Real Estate Exchange rooms, where Vandergaw met 
several people whom I did not personally know. About one o'clock 
he and I went to the offices of W. N". Wolfe in the Electrical Ex- 
change Building on Liberty street to see W T olfe, who had the Cres- 
cent Lloyds papers and who claimed he had a customer for them. 
Vandergaw and I came up Liberty street to Broadway, where we 
separated agreeing to meet at Vail's office at two o'clock. That 
gave Vandergaw time to either go or send to the county clerk 7 s 
office and get the certificate. We met at 140 Nassau street. Van- 
dergaw was just ascending the stairway when I overtook him. 
tanped him on the shoulder and asked " Did you see your parties." 
He said " Yes, everything is O. K." I said " Give me the 
papers," and Vandergaw handed me the papers with the county 



Affidavit of Joseph Hegeman 167 

clerk's certificate attached. We went together to George H. Quen- 
nard's office, 307 Pearl street, New York city. I turned the papers 
over to Quennard and he made checks payable to me and Vander- 
gaw separately, finally closing for $110. I had made arrange- 
ments with Quennard whereby Vandergaw and I were to receive 
a percentage from the business. After the charters were paid for 
Quennard stated that he could sell several. We told Quennard 
no more could be sold for less than $200 and he must get his com- 
mission above that. We left Quennard's office and separated on 
the corner of Pearl and Beekman streets. On the corner Vander- 
gaw says: " Do you think these checks are all O. K. as I am go- 
ing to give mine to a grocer or merchant up home." I said I had 
no reason to think but that Quennard was all right for a few such 
checks. We then separated. 

At that time Vandergaw claimed he lived at Queens, Long Is- 
land. He did not pretend to have an office anywhere to my knowl- 
edge, but received mail at Wolfe's office above referred to and also 
at Vail's office. 

Vandergaw is about five feet eight, gray hair and gray mous- 
tache, weighed about 140 pounds, fifty-five to sixty years old, sal- 
low complexion, piercing black eyes and a very prominent nose. 
He seemed to have some trouble with his nose, probably some oper- 
- ation performed, he was troubled with asthma, .and when talking 
has a hawking cough to clear his throat, keeps clearing his throat 
all the time. When he is reading or writing he wears glasses. 
His hair is gray but I think he is not bald. 

Hubert L. Smith is some relative of Graham MacAdam; he 
knew Vandergaw very well and they both knew one Andrew J. 
Ensign, a notary, before whom acknowledgments of some kind 
have been taken by some of us. I never certified to any paper or 
papers before Ensign. Hubert L. Smith introduced me to Van- 
dergaw. I have heard MacAdam, Morris Goldberg, a man by the 
name of Collins in Mac Adam's office, also MacAdam' s sons, An- 
thony, Welsch and Clarence J. Irving all address him as Vander- 
gaw. I have letters from him signed David Vandergaw, which I 
think are among my private papers. I have seen him sign his 
name David Vandergaw to a deed of some property. I could not 
identify deed. 

I produce Exhibit D, a certificate of stcck of the United Fire 
Insurance Company, from my personal papers. The endorsement 
on the back is in the handwriting of Vandergaw, and he wrote 
himself, in my presence, the signatures of William I. Brown and 
J. P. Thurman on the back of Exhibit D. 

Vail, in whose office some of the transactions above described 
took place, is a man about five feet eight or nine, about forty 



168 Lloyds Report 

years old, weighs 150 to 155 pounds, fair complexion, smooth face, 
large full gray or blue eyes, hair brown, slightly streaked with 
gray. His features are regular, but he has some peculiarity about 
his head, I think a scar or burn on his forehead. As long as I 
knew him he had an office at room 39, 140 Kassau street. 

At that time a typewriter who did these charters was on the 
same floor in the Morse Building that Vail's office was on, about 
the first or second door coming from the elevator. I don't know 
her name. She is a young lady about twenty, brunette, deep 
brown hair and brown eyes. I have met her in Vail's office with 
the papers, but was never introduced to her. She gave the papers 
to Vail. I have seen Vail with some of these papers. He has 
given me some of these papers that were left by Vandergaw for 
me, both signed and unsigned. I have seen this typewriter leave 
papers a number of times for either Vandergaw or Vail. After 
looking at the papers Vandergaw returned them on several acca- 
sions to Vail for correction by this typewriter. I have seen Van- 
dergaw pay Vail for the typewriting. I once asked Vandergaw 
if he thought it was good policy to have that typewriter strike off 
these charters and he said she didn't know what they were, so 
long as the names were left blank and she did them cheaper than 
they could be done elsewhere. The time when these documents 
were being made was between January, 1895, and the 5th of 
June, 1895. 

After the transaction with Quennard, Vandergaw claimed that 
he would have to make twenty dollars out of the purchase price of 
these charters for the signatures of the original subscribers and 
notary, as he had to pay them five dollars apiece before dividing 
with me. In the Hart transaction he took $5 more than I to pay 
the notary. 

Joseph Hegemax. 
Sworn to before me this 4th 
day of March, 1896. 

James Tuley, 

Notary Public, Kings County. 

Affidavit of Hubert L. Smith 

City axd County of Xew York, ss. : 

Hubert L. Smith, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 
I know Frank W. Anthony ; I know David Vandergaw ; I know 
Graham McAdam ; I identify Exhibit " E " as being the work of 
David Vandergaw. The signatures " Ira S. Gardiner," " J. E. 
Oakes," and " Isaac M. Hathaway " were signed, as I verily be- 
lieve, by David Vandergaw. I have seen him sign these names to 



Affidavit of Hubert L. Smith 169 

other documents. The deed dated the 28th day of July, 1888. 
signed " John E. Oakes," was signed by Vandergaw, also the 
name of the witness, Ira Gardiner. The affidavit of December 15. 
1892, signed " Isaac M. Hathaway," is in the handwriting, both 
body and signature, of David Vandergaw. The articles and power 
of attorney of the Fulton Underwriters of New York, and the 
other documents connected with the said Fulton Underwriters, are 
signed by the same man with the same names. The two notes 
dated November 15th and January 3rd are in the handwriting 
of Vandergaw, who filled out the notes, and who signed the name 
'•Isaac M. Hathaway." 

Andrew J. Ensign, formerly of 80 Broadway, and then of 59 
Broadway, and now of 123 Liberty street, is the notary who was 
used by Vandergaw in a great many of his transactions ; and I 
have known personally myself of Ensign to take acknowledg- 
ments and affidavits of people who never appeared before him. 
James B. Collins, who, I am informed, appears as a notary on 
some of these charters, is in the office of Graham McAdam. 

In talking with David Vandergaw on the subject of these 
various charters, I asked him about the notary, Louis Canale, 
where he was, where he could be found. Vandergaw refused to 
tell me ; he refused to give me any information. I afterward 
asked him again, and he said that he was somewheres in Bayard 
street, in a basement, and I went up there and inquired all through 
the block, and an Italian woman told me that I did not have the 
name right. I said, " Canal ? " — and she said " Canale " — 
she said, " over this way," pointing to a drug store opposite, and 
1 went over to the drug store and there were five or six men in 
the back room. They acted very suspiciously, and finally some- 
body came up and asked me what I wanted, what was my busi- 
ness, and I replied I was looking for a notary public named 
Canale. He at first declared he knew no such person. I says, 
" Oh, yes, you do, he is here, I know he is here, I saw him coming 
in a couple of minutes ago, coming into the place." He then ad- 
mitted that he could find him if it was anything important. Then 
I asked him where, and he told me on Centre street, near the 
Tombs. I went in each house until I found him, and I after- 
ward traced Vandergaw to the same place. Last summer I 
went there again, one afternoon, to find out something in regard 
to his notary numbers, and he was not in at the time. I waited 
about twenty minutes, came down stairs, and was going out of 
the door when I spied Vandergaw opposite. He evidently had 
been there before me, and finding Canale not in, was waiting for 
him. I waited an hour or two and then went back and saw Canale. 
Then I went to see him a2;ain, and he had moved, and I traced 



170 Lloyds Report 

liim to Leonard street and waited for him until he came in, and I 
explained that there was some trouble in regard to his numbers 
on these papers, and could he tell me what his numbers were for 
the last six years, and he shrugged his shoulders and said he 
didn't know. I said, " Have you a certificate ? " — and he said, 
" There on the wall." I looked at it, and that was 139, issued in 
March, 1894. I said, "Haven't you another one among your 
papers somewhere ? " . So he looked in the bottom drawer of his 
desk, and he fished out one, 144, issued in March, 1892, that 
was prior to 139. I says, " "Will you let me take it, I will re- 
turn it to you to-morrow ? " and he said " Certainly." So I 
made a memorandum on the back of it of the three certificates and 
the exact dates that they were taken out and when they expired. 
Then I went down to the county clerk's office and verified it. 
finding these numbers: 130 from the last of March, 1890, to the 
last of March, 1892; 144 from the last of March, 1892, to the 
last of March, 1894; and 139 from the last of March. 1894, to the 
last of March, 1896. I took that down to Daynes' office at 27 
Pine street. Mr. Daynes was very much excited, as he had one 
of these charters with 144 on it. which didn't cover the time it 
was issued, and I took it down there for his inspection. He 
wanted me to go and get Canale to come down there and change 
the number. I went back and asked Canale if he would do so. 
and he said that he didn't know anything about it, that he could 
not remember who the people were that came before him ; and 
then I gave Daynes his address, and told him that Mr. Parker, 
who was the chief clerk for Daynes & Company, could go up 
there and fix it himself, I had nothing to do with it, and what 
they did with it after that I don't know. That was the only 
talk I had with Daynes about it. He said the charter had been 
put away, the subscribers had it in their possession and he could 
not get it, and there would be the deuce to pay about it. I said, 
" Well, if they have the charter, how in thunder can Canale 
change it, if they have got it in their possession ? " He walked 
off and went into the other room and closed the door, and I asked 
Parker what was the matter with the old man. The reason that 
T went and saw Daynes was that I sold this particular charter tc 
him. I do not remember the name that was on this charter at 
the time. This charter I went out and bought for him and sold 
it to him right in front of Peasley's office, he paying me onq 
hundred dollars in bills. Last summer Parker asked me could 
I get another charter. He wanted it for somebody down the 
street, and I said, " Yes, I can get you one," he said " Por how 
much ? " — and so we had a little dissertation about the price, 
and finally agreed upon one hundred dollars cash. So I secured 



Affidavit of Hlbfet L. Smith 171 

a charter and delivered it at his office, and several days after- 
ward he sent for me and said that there was the devil to pay, 
that it was a duplicate of one I had previously sold to their firm, 
and that Daynes had seen it and wanted to see me in reference 
to it. So I went in the private office and Daynes shut the door, 
and afterward called Parker in, and wanted to keep the charter 
and destroy it, and I said no, it didn't belong to me and that I 
must return it to the parties who originally had it. It was in 
the spring that I sold this charter to Daynes, and it was in the 
summer, after my interview with Parker above described, that 
I had this second interview with him. One of the Lloyds that I 
sold to Daynes was called the Ocean Lloyds at that time. I sold 
Daynes the Ocean and another one. My negotiations were prac- 
tically all with Parker, his chief clerk, but I had also conversa- 
tions with Mr. Mendelssohn, his partner, and Mr. Daynes him- 
self. Part of the money for the Ocean was paid in Thorn's saloon, 
one Saturday afternoon ; the rest of it had been paid to me 
previously. 

I sold one charter in September, 1895, for one hundred dollars, 
to Arthur Grundy. He paid me thirty dollars in check, and a 
note for seventy dollars. I do not remember what the name of 
that was. Louis Canale was on all these three charters. 

The alleged subscribers to these Lloyds were either Baxter, 
Clinton and Snow; or McCann, Clinton and Baxter. I got these 
from A. B. Tenney. 

I produce from my papers a policy of the Columbus Lloyds. 
This policy was issued, but never delivered, for the purpose of 
keeping alive the Columbus charter. Part of the Columbus 
papers were got out by Anthony through a typewriter who was 
up in the fifth floor of the Franklin Building, 186 Bemsen street, 
Brooklyn. 

Emil H. Brie, who is a third partner with Peasley and Gen. 
Yarrington, told me that Yarrington supplied the charter. I 
said to Brie, " You made out this, and you know you did." " JSTo," 
he said, " Yarrington supplied the charter ;" but of course, he got 
it from them. I have seen Vandergaw with Yarrington a great 
many times at 111 Broadway, at Ensign's office, 59 Broadway, 
and in the corridor of the Equitable Building. Yarrington is 
a short man, about five feet five inches, I think, and wears a derby 
hat ; smooth face, with a grayish moustache ; a man of about fifty- 
five years of age, I should judge. He is connected with land 
and investment schemes. 

Brie told me that Peasley gave each subscriber, when they had 
a meeting, a five dollar check, and they went down to TJffo 
Strikerjohn's restaurant, corner Maiden lane and Liberty street. 



i72 . Lloyds Repokt 

Striker John told me that he cashed some of those checks, and asked 
me were they good; he told me that the gang came in there and 
he cashed the checks for them. They got five dollars apiece for 
signing as underwriters to the Jefferson Lloyds. This man Brie 
made up some of the extra papers, minute books, etc., of several 
of the Lloyds sold in the summer of 1895. I am informed that 
Brie's picture is in the Rogues' Gallery. 

The original subscribers to the Waldorf charter were Snow, 
Clinton and Baxter; the notary was Canale. I got the charter 
of the Waldorf and went into partnership with Charles W. 
Peasley. I got that from A. B. Tenney also. I think the 
notary's certificate on the Waldorf is wrong. Peasley told me 
himself that the number was 144, and it should have been 130, 
and he was very much worried about it. I asked him several 
days after what he did about it, and he said he put the papers 
in the safe deposit vault, where nobody could find them. The 
last I saw of Tenney was, I think, on Thursday, the 12th of 
December, 1895. He told me he was going away, and I under- 
stood that he had gone to England. 

I was introduced to Snow, Clinton and Baxter, at 27 Thames 
street, Brooklyn, by James Boylan. Tenney told me to go there 
and meet these men, where I would be introduced to them by 
James Boylan, whom I knew. 

The Century, Liberty, Oriental and German were manufac- 
tured by Harry Morris. He so stated to Charles W. Peasley, 
and he came to him in a great fright because he heard the charges 
that these charters were bogus. This w T as the occasion for making 
the confession. 

I. have known Anthony in the neighborhood of ten years, pos- 
sibly longer ; Vandergaw, eight or ten years ; and McAdam, I 
have known ever since I was a small boy. 

In McAdam's office, when he was with his brother, George 
Harrison McAdam, Temple Court Building, I have seen intend- 
ing purchasers call in regard to the Columbus and the Empire 
State charters. He was trying to sell them at that time, and 
when the Empire State charter was sold, he acted as attorney for 
Anthony and myself and Vandergaw and went over to Stapleton 
& Miles' office, the attorneys for Welch & Hegeman ; that was 
about March, 1894. 

I received a letter from McAdam, which I herewith produce, 
asking me could I procure a charter, a? he had a customer for one. 
I got the charter the next day, and delivered it the same at his 
office in Temple Court Building. I think it was the Hudson 
River Eire Lloyds. He- took the charter, so he said, to parties 
intending to buy, and in several days afterward I drummed him 



Affidavit of Hubert L. Smith 173 

up pretty lively for the money, as he said it was a cash sale. 
He remarked, wt You have got me in an awful fix, because this 
is a duplicate charter, and the parties have seen the same thing 
elsewhere." He never returned the charter to me, and I could 
never get any satisfaction as to the charter or the money. Van- 
dergaw told me afterward that McAdam asked him if he could 
get Boylan to sign an affidavit stating that the policy was issued 
to him on this same charter. I advised Vandergaw not to do it. 
I also asked him did McAdam offer to pay for it, and he said, 
I think, no ; and I said, " I hope you won't get it for McAdam." 
He said, tk Of course, if he paid for it, I would have to give 
Boylan at least five dollars." I made the remark, " You were 
never known to give Boylan a cent in your life, you were always 
willing to get all you could out of these fellows and get big pay 
for it yourself, but the other fellow never got anything — possibly 
a quarter, or so." 

Yandergaw, H. Wolfe, Clarence Irving and myself had an 
agreement to start a Safety Lloyds. I went to personal expense 
and fitted up the office and supplied the printing and postage. 
H. Wolfe was the attorney-in-fact, and furnished the subscribers, 
some ten in number. Irving ran the business. In about two 
weeks I was informed that Yandergaw, Wolfe and Irving, through 
McAdam, disposed of the whole outfit to Anthony for about three 
hundred dollars. I didn't get anything. This was the Safety 
which was afterward removed to Brooklyn. I went to the office 
one morning after the sale and found the door locked. Wolfe 
made a statement that I forged his name to a policy. This was 
done in order to keep me quiet, so I would not make a fuss in 
regard to the sale. McAdam managed the whole thing and after- 
ward made the statement on the street that " that was one time 
he got ahead of Smith." I think the names on this charter were 
Snow, Clinton and Baxter. I got it from Tenney, 

Hubert L. Smith. 
Sworn to before me this 5th 
day of March, 1896. 

BOBERT E. ElCHOEES, 

Notary Public (39), New York. Count'/. 



174 



J.OYDS ULvl'OKT 



APPEXDIX B 

The opinions of Judges Russell and Truax in the Loew and 
Abell cases are so important that they are here given in full. 

SUPREME COURT — New York County. 



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW 
YORK, Plaintiffs, 

against 

EDWARD V. LOEW et ah, 

Defendants. 



From 19 Misc. Rep. 248. 

Opinion by Russell, J.- At the opening of the trial of this 
action the defendants moved for a dismissal of the complaint 
upon the record, upon the ground that the action is not maintain- 
able, and that no right has been conferred upon the law officers 
of the state to maintain an action in the name of the people for 
the purposes contemplated by this proceeding. 

The complaint charges that the defendants, seventeen in num- 
ber, are exercising franchises and privileges not allowed by law. 
The defendants are associated together for the purposes of effect- 
ing insurances under the name of The People's Fire Lloyds of 
New York city, and as such solicit and transact the business of 
insurance with only an individual responsibility for losses, and 
that to an extent carefully guarded and limited in amount and 
terms by the provisions of their policies. 

As the decision in this action may be a precedent for the 
determination of many more cases, it has been deemed advisable 
to take the motion to dismiss under consideration, upon printed 
briefs submitted, in addition to the oral argument upon the trial. 

The attorney-general seeks to maintain his action under the 
provisions of section 1948 et seq., of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
Section 1948 allows the attorney-general to maintain an action 
upon his own information, or on the complaint of a private per- 
son, against a person unlawfully claiming an office, an officer who 
has forfeited his office, or " against one or more persons who act 



Opinion of Judge Russell 175 

-as a corporation, within the state, without being duly incor- 
porated ; or exercises, within the state, any corporate rights, 
privileges, or franchises not granted to them by the law of the 
state. 1 ' The defendants contend that this section only allows a 
contest over unlawful claims to corporate rights, corporate privi- 
leges or corporate franchises. If the position of the defendants' 
counsel be correct there is no method of preventing private per- 
sons from transacting the business of insurance except by the 
imposition of the $500 fine imposed by section 53 of the insurance 
law, chapter 690, laws of 1892. 

In the codification of the insurance laws of the state in 1892, 
a general prohibition was enacted against any person or associa- 
tion doing insurance business in the state except through cor- 
porations or persons possessed of the capital required, and under 
regulations established by law; but a reservation from the effect 
of those general provisions was made by section 67 as to the in- 
dividuals or associations known as Lloyds or individual under- 
writers, which on the 1st day of October, 1892, were lawfully 
engaged in the business of insurance. Id., § 54. 

As the business of insuring lives, property, credits and fidelity 
of conduct has become of such large public concern in connection 
with the business enterprises and activities of the people of the 
state generally, such business has essentially become one of a 
public character ; and it has been found necessary by the legis- 
lature to guard and protect the people of the state in their deal- 
ings with the persons and corporations assuming to act as insur- 
ance companies in the same manner that it has been found essen- 
tial to deal with the business of banking. The state has now 
for many years had a governmental department devoted to that 
purpose, and has placed upon the superintendent or head of that 
department responsible duties in regard to the supervision of 
domestic and foreign companies doing business within the state. 
It has thus been held repeatedly that the state has the right to 
regard the business of insurance as one dependent upon the exer- 
cise of a franchise which the state has the right to give and to 
withhold. This franchise right has grown up from a small be- 
ginning from necessity, but is not a departure from the general 
rule characterizing the meaning of the term " franchise." It is 
simply a modern application of the principle governing such 
privileges applied to new emergencies. Whatever is of large 
public concern, so that a want of regulation and control will 
injuriously affect the public in its general interests, may be the 
subject of a franchise. 

The contention of the defendants, therefore, that the declaration 
-of the act of 1892 forbidding unauthorized persons to exercise the 



170 Lloyds Repoet 

privilege of insurance, with a reservation of its effect upon the 
Lloyds companies, was the first creation of an insurance fran- 
chise, and that, therefore, the people inay not maintain this action 
to determine that the defendants had no right to exercise the 
insurance franchise, cannot be successfully maintained. From 
the original grasp by the legislature of the subject of insurance 
business, the framing of regulations upon the subject, the privi- 
lege of insurance became a franchise; and the sufferance of 
insurance by private persons till 1892 did not establish the 
sacredness of that form of action as a personal right. The power, 
therefore, to regulate, even to the extent of prohibition, the busi- 
ness of insurance by acts of the legislature does not depend ex-t 
clusively upon the right of the legislature to subject corporations 
as such to statutory control, but extends beyond, to the transac- 
tion of business recognized as such to be within the discretionary 
control of legislative action. Commonwealth v. Yrooman, 169 
Pemi. St. 306; State v. Ackerman, 51 Ohio St. 163; Thompson v. 
People, 23 Wend. 547; University v. People, 99 U. S. 309. 

The situation, therefore, is this : Upon a matter of public in- 
terest and of public regulation the legislature has provided the 
only methods by which persons or associations may transact busi- • 
ness ; and the consequences of a breach of the statutory regulations 
provided, or the conduct of the business without the govern- 
mental supervision, or the regulation afforded by the state, is 
deemed so serious as to call for the necessity of definite statutory 
enactments, with the expense and maintenance of a large depart- 
ment of the government of the state ; and yet it is earnestly 
claimed that there is no method known by which the state can 
see that its regulations are enforced, and its prohibition of un- 
lawful business maintained, against those seeking to defy its 
authority. 

Section 1948 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by which and 
through which the attorney-general acts on behalf of the state in . 
maintaining actions to prevent the unlawful transaction of busi- 
ness regulated by the state, is somewhat doubtful in its con- 
struction. It is a section which was incorporated into the Code 
upon the abolition of the former writ of quo warranto, to serve 
in the place and stead of that writ. People ex rel. Hatzel v. 
Hall, 80 X. Y. 117 ; People ex rel. Judson v. Thacher, 55 id. 
528. It becomes essential, therefore, in the construction of this 
section conferring the right of action upon the attorney-general 
in lieu of the writ of quo warranto, to go back to tho common law 
as to what a writ of quo warranto was, and what its jurisdiction 
and foundation. 



Opinion of Judge Russell 177 

We are so generally accustomed to view a writ of quo warranto 
as effective only in cases of intrusion into public office, or action 
as a corporation without proper formation as such, that we asso- 
ciate the term with proceedings designed for such purposes. Its 
original scope, however, was broader. It was a writ of right 
maintainable in the name of the king against any person who 
claimed or usurped any office, franchise or liberty, to inquire by 
what authority he made his claim, and to determine its right. 
Finch L. 322 ; 2 Insts. 282. It was applied to the exercise of a 
franchise relating to land, and judgment might be given ousting 
the claimant of such franchise. 2 Chitty Practice, 367. Co. Ent. 
27 B. ; Jacob's Law Diet., title Quo Warranto. The foundation 
of the writ was, therefore, to give a common-law right of deter- 
mination in every case where a franchise was unlawfully asserted 
and used. Thompson v. People, 23 Wend. 537. 

If, therefore, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are 
a substitute for the writ which it abolished, jurisdiction was 
designed to be coextensive, and would apply to a case where a 
number of individuals claimed to exercise a franchise, which is 
the subject of gift, withholding or sufferance by the state. 

Thisjs undoubtedly so unless the terms of section 1948 clearly 
limit the scope of the common-law writ. Such inference would 
not be made from the natural disposition of the courts, which 
broadens jurisdiction to give all possible redress instead of 
narrowing even those afforded by the common-law process. Sub- 
division 3 of section 1948 allows the attorney-general's action 
against one or more persons who act as a corporation within the 
state without being duly incorporated, or, secondly, exercise 
within the state any corporate rights, privileges or franchises not 
granted to them by the laws of the state. It may be said that 
anybody in the state who exercises any corporate rights neces- 
sarily acts as a corporation, and, therefore, comes within the 
jurisdiction of the first branch of subdivision 3, and that the 
second branch of that subdivision must necessarily refer to per- 
sons who do not act under the assumption of corporate rights, 
which would include private individuals acting presumably as 
such, and such construction would, therefore, be given to the 
addition of the words " privileges or franchises " as to include 
those not acting for corporate purposes, which construction could 
easily be made by the division created by the insertion of a semi- 
colon after the words " corporate rights " in the section. 

There is another view which seems to me to be of serious force. 
The defendants, while claiming not to be a corporation or to 
exercise corporate rights, still insist that they have 1 the lawful 
franchise, privilege or right, by whatever name it may he called. 



178 Lloyds Kepokt 

to cany on the business of insurance with a limited personal 
liability, and that only to the extent of the sums advanced or 
pledged as indemnity to the insured. Thus, while they disclaim 
the name of corporation, they insist upon the substance of its 
power. They have the advantage of combined and associated 
enterprise, with limited liability, distinguishing features of cor- 
porate rights, privileges or franchises. By section 54 of the 
insurance law referred to, the legislature has forbidden private 
persons, partnerships or associations to engage in the business of 
insurance unless possessed of capital required of corporations and 
invested in the same manner, nor unless securities are deposited 
with the insurance superintendent of the same amount required of 
an insurance corporation, nor unless that officer shall have granted 
them a certificate that they have complied with all the provisions 
cf law which an insurance corporation doing business in this 
state is required to observe and that the business of insurance 
may be safely intrusted to them. 

What is the exercise of business, carried on and secured and 
superintended and governed by the state precisely as with cor- 
porations, but the exercise of corporate rights, privileges and 
franchises within the meaning of the statutory law whose general 
theory is that all of this business shall be conducted by corpora- 
tions, and, if not in name by them, in substance in the same way 
as the business is carried on by them, and, as a large amount ot 
insurance business is transacted through corporations by statu- 
tory authority, is not the exercise of that privilege by like statu- 
tory authority by a combination or association of persons, with 
limited personal liability, a franchise pertaining to a corporation, 
but yet one which in certain instances may be exercised without 
the completion of corporation identity? 

Viewing, therefore, one part of the statutory law as being in 
harmony with the symmetry of the whole ; the prohibition against 
private associations from transacting business seriously affecting 
public interest and which is generally exercised through corpora- 
tions unless in case of compliance with the same requirements as 
those enjoined upon completed corporations; the provisions of 
section 1948 of the Code of Civil Procedure making a clear dis- 
tinction between persons acting as a corporation without being 
duly incorporated and those who (without acting as a corporation) 
exercised corporate rights, privileges or franchises not granted 
to them by the law of the state ; I am inclined to believe that the 
prohibition against unlawful insurance action is not without 
remedial action to enforce it, and, therefore, that this action may 
be maintained if the issue of fact yet to be tried is sustained by 
proper proof offered by the attorney-general. 



Opixio^ of Judge Russell 179 

The objection that the attorney-general has inserted in the 
complaint that the action was brought upon a complaint and 
information of the superintendent ot insurance is not of force 
on this motion. It is a question as to whether that objection can 
be taken otherwise than by preliminary motion before answer; 
but whether this is so or not the Code authorized the attorney- 
general to bring an action upon his own information or the com- 
plaint of a private person, the latter provision being essential 
only to add authority to this officer to act upon the complaint of 
a private person in addition to his general power to act of his own 
volition upon information conveyed to him from official or other 
sources. The insertion in the complaint of the allusion to the 
information of the superintendent of insurance was entirely un- 
necessary and does not limit the power of the attorney-general 
who could have brought this action without such information. 

The motion to dismiss the action is, therefore, denied, and the 
cause will proceed to trial. 

SUPREME COURT — Xew Yoek County. 



;i 



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK, Plaintiffs, 

against 

EDWARD V. LOEW et al., 

Defendants. 



Erom 23 Misc. Rep. 574. 

Opinion by Russell, J. — The relief sought is a judgment 
declaring the defendants to be unlawfully transacting the business 
of insurance in this state by the name of the " People's Eire 
Lloyds," and, so, unlawfully claiming to exercise a privilege or 
franchise not granted by the laws of the state; and for an in- 
junction restraining the issuance of policies of insurance. The 
right to maintain the action, upon the facts stated in the com- 
plaint, was decided, in advance of the hearing of the testimony, 
in favor of the plaintiffs. 19 Misc. Rep. 248. 

The evidence discloses that the defendants to the number of 
about seventeen are engaged in the business of fire insurance 
under contracts which provide for limited personal liability, 
claiming the right by assignment from the original associators, 
Parsons, Broderick and Holt. These three individuals, on the 
11th of April, 1892, in one afternoon prepared the papers for the 
organization of thirty different Lloyds associations, identical in 
form except as the names differed, with one attorney and manager 



180 Lloyds Kepokt 

for the whole ; one of the associations being now named the 
" People's Fire Lloyds " and managed by the defendants. The 
original organization was not made for the bona fide purpose of 
conducting insurance business by the associators through the 
thirty different organizations, but for the purpose of sale to pur- 
chasers to be found. Lour small policies Were issued by the 
People's Lloyds, all within the circle of the associators and busi- 
ness friends. These policies were not issued for the purpose of 
starting and continuing a general insurance business, but to effect 
a nominal use of the apparent purpose of the organization. At a 
meeting of the associates held in July, 1892, it was decided that 
it would be inadvisable to issue any more policies until the general 
fire business should undergo further improvement. On the 14th 
of March, 1894, the three associators elected Benjamin F. Rhoades 
and several others as associate members, and then resigned pur- 
suant to the terms of the transfer of the rights of the original 
associators. Whether there was anything to be transferred, which 
gave the defendants the right to continue the business of fire 
insurance in this state, depends upon whether, from the 1st day 
of October, 1892, the original associators were actually engaged 
in the business of insurance within this state. 

By chapter 690 of the laws of 1892, it was declared that no 
person, partnership or association should engage as principals in 
the business of insurance in this state unless possessed of the 
capital required of insurance corporations, and unless they had 
made deposits with the superintendent of insurance of securities 
to the same amount required from corporations, and a certificate 
had been issued by the superintendent to them. By chapter 684 
of the laws of 1894, amending section 57 of chapter 690 of the 
laws of 1892, it was provided that the provisions referred to 
should not apply to individuals, partnerships or associations 
known as Lloyds, or as individual underwriters, which on the 1st 
day of October, 1892, were lawfully engaged in the business of 
insurance within this state and not required to report to the 
superintendent of insurance. 

This saving clause applied undoubtedly to those who had in- 
vested capital, means and labor in the creation of an association 
for the honest purpose of effecting insurances, and had proceeded 
to such an extent as to be actually engaged in that business on 
the 1st day of October, 1892. The execution of this class of 
persons from the general public policy of the state, as announced 
by chapter 690 of the laws of 1892, wa^ designed to relieve from 
the hardship of the prohibition those who had in good faith ac- 
quired property rights, and earned somewhat of a good will in 
the insurance business by their efforts prior to the date named. 



Opinion of Judge Eussell 181 

The general policy of the state remained the same as to all others, 
and was announced by statute in recognition that the business of 
insurance has become so expanded as to be a matter of public 
concern, and to require the deposit with the superintendent of 
considerable capital to secure the public dealing with insurance 
companies, and the supervision of the superintendent of insurance 
as to the management of the different companies. The state had 
for many years maintained an insurance department, as one of 
the public departments of the state, for the supervision of the 
business of insurance, and had assumed that the franchise or right 
to offer to the public satisfactory and secure provision against 
loss was one within the discretionary control of the legislature. 
University v. People, 99 U. S. 309 ; Thompson v. People, 23 
Wend. 547 ; State v. Ackerman, 51 Ohio St. 163; Commonwealth 
v. Vrooman, 164 Penn. St. 306. 

Can this present organization be said fairly to come within 
the spirit of the exception to the declared public policy of the 
state ? 

Insurance companies are organized for the purpose of making 
insurances, and not for the purpose of sale. When individuals 
through the form of a corporation, or any other associated enter- 
prise, create a company whose defined objects are the effecting of 
insurances, the presumption is that the business in which they are 
actually to engage is that to which the objects are avowedly de- 
voted. In the present case, from the wholesale organization of 
many associations at the same time by three individuals, and the 
suspension of business by the original associators, it becomes plairi 
that insurance was only to be carried on as an actuality from the 
time when the associators should separate themselves from the 
enterprise, and the real insurers of property take charge of the 
affairs of the company. Until that event occurred the original 
associators were not actually engaged in the business of insurance 
within the state, and so do not come within the exception to a 
beneficent public policy, devised for the protection of the insuring 
public, and have no equitable claim to be freed from the pro- 
hibitions expressed in the law, or to exercise a monopoly or privi- 
lege with freedom from liability, shared by a very few citizens 
of the state. 

No sale of such an enterprise can convey a better right than 
the associators themselves had; nor can the action or recognition 
of any of the executive officers of the state legalize a business 
declared unlawful by its general laws. 

Judgment is directed in favor of the plaintiffs, adjudging the 
defendants to be unlawfully transacting the business of insurance 
in the state of New York as the People's Fire Lloyds, and un- 



182 Lloyds Report 

lawfully claiming and exercising a privilege of franchise not 
granted by the laws of the state, and for an injunction restrain- 
ing the issuance of policies by said persons until compliance with, 
the conditions imposed by law. with costs to the plaintiffs against 
the defendants. 

SUPREME COURT — New Yoke: County. 



THE PEOPLE OF THE -TATE OF XE"W 1 
YORK Plaintiffs 

C. LEE ABELL et al. 

Defendant* 



From New Turk Raw Journal of May 2. 1896, 

Opinion by Truax. J. — It is provided by section 5i of chapter 
: the laws of 1892, commonly known as the insurance law. 
that " no person, partnership or association of persons shall en- 
gage in the business of insurance in this state, except as agents of 
a person or corporation authorized to do the business of insurance 
in the state, unle-s possessed of the capital required of an in- 
surance corporation doing the same kind of business in the state, 
and b'.vested in the same manner: nor unless he or they shall have 
made and deposited with the superintendent of insurance securi- 
ties of the same amount required by an insurance corporation 
doing business in this state, nor unless the superintendent of in- 
surance shall have granted to him or them a certificate to the effect 
that he or they have complied with all the provisions of law which 
an insurance corporation doing business in this state is required 
to observe, and that the business of insurance specified therein 
may be safely intrusted to the person 3 partnership or associa- 
tion of persons to whom the certificate is granted. Every person. 
partnership or association receiving any such certificate of 
authority shall be subject to the insurance laws of the state and 
to the jurisdiction and supervision of the superintendent of in- 
surance in the same manner as if an insurance corporation, 
authorized by the laws of this state to engage in the business of 
insurance specified in the certificate. No such person, partner- 
ship or association shall transact hu-ine-s under a corporate or 
fictitious name, or under any name, style or title other than the 
true name of sueh person, or of the persous comprising such 
partnership or association." And by section 57 of said insurance 
law it is provided a- follows: "The provisions of thi- article 
shall not apply to the corporations specified in articles seven and 



Opinion of Judge Teuax 183 

nine of this chapter, or to any town or county co-operative in- 
surance corporation incorporated under any special act of the 
legislature for purposes similar to those for which corporations 
may be formed under article nine, nor to any corporation subject 
to the supervision of or required by or in pursuance of law to 
report to the superintendent of the banking department, nor to 
any individual or partnership or association of underwriters known 
as Lloyds or as individual underwriters, which, on the first day 
of October, 1S92, is lawfully engaged in the business of insurance 
within this state, and not required by law to report to the super- 
intendent of insurance or the insurance department, or subject to 
their supervision or examination, nor to any such association, 
notwithstanding any change hereafter made therein by the death, 
retirement or withdrawal of any of such underwriters or by the 
admission of others to such association." The defendants claim 
that they were legally engaged in the business of insurance within 
this state on the 1st day of October, 1892, and that, therefore, the 
provisions of the insurance laws do not apply to them. The facts 
are as follows: On the eighteenth day of April, 1892, Ira S. 
Gardiner, John E. Oakes and Isaac M. Hathaway executed and 
acknowledged before Louis Canale, a notary, an instrument in 
writing bearing no date, entitled " Articles and Power of Attorney 
of the Mont auk Lloyds of New York." The instrument set forth, 
in substance, that the three individuals proposed to organize an 
association called the Mont auk Lloyds of New York, for the 
transaction of insurance business under the form known as Lloyds. 
It included an agreement to employ one of the three as general 
manager and attorney-in-fact, with provisions as to carrying on 
the business of perpetuating the organization. On the same day 
the three individuals executed a separate power of attorney to one 
of their number, Ira S. Gardiner, which bears date of April 18th : 
1892, and on the same day the three insured or purported to 
insure one of their number, Isaac M. Hathaway, on his property 
at 289 McDougal Street, for a term of three years from April 
18, 1892. This policy was afterward renewed for three years 
for an alleged consideration of $5 premium. Nothing further 
was done toward transacting the business of insurance until May 
1, 1895. Ou that day a special meeting was held to consider 
the question of " reorganization." According to the minutes of 
said meeting, the three individuals above referred to were present 
and elected William Daynes and 0. W. Vanderhoogt, trading as 
Daynes & Co., to membership, and immediately the three alleged 
original members executed a paoer, entitled " Resignation of 
OriffiVal Incorporators of the Montauk Lloyds of New York 
City." Another instrument, an assignment, was executed oh the 



184 Lloyds Report 

same day by the said three individuals. On the first day of May, 
1895, the parties interested changed the name of the organization 
from the Montauk Lloyds of Xew York to the " General Lloyds 
of New York," as appears from an instrument dated on that day. 
On the same day they issued policy No. 2 at a premium of $1.25. 
The alleged gross premium receipts of the organization, from the 
commencement of its existence down to the 30th day of June, 
1895, were $11.25. There is no evidence that this sum was ever 
paid. I am of the opinion that the defendant was not on the 1st 
day of October, 1892, lawfully engaged in the business of insur- 
ance within this state, and I have come to this conclusion without 
regard to the change of name. There was but one policy of in- 
surance in existence at that time issued by the company, and that 
was the policy which had been issued some months before to one 
of the three men that had organized the Montauk Lloyds, and 
upon which all three of them purported to make themselves liable 
to one of their own number. It was the intention of section 57 
to preserve the rights of those corporations which were actually 
engaged in business on the first day of October, 1892. It was 
not the intention of the Legislature to confer the great powers 
given by the insurance law upon any corporation or body of men 
that was not actually and in good faith engaged in business on 
that day. The system of insurance laws in this state is a wise 
and just one, and the provisions requiring a deposit to be made 
in the office of the superintendent of insurance is a wise and just 
one, and was meant for the benefit of and to protect policyholders. 
No company, organization or body of men should be allowed to 
escape its provisions unless it has been clearly shown that the 
provisions of section 57 have been followed. The defendants 
claim that because they were organized in April, 1892, it is im- 
material whether they were doing business or not in October, 
1892. I do not think that this claim is well founded. The 
legislature had a constitutional right to say what companies 
should or should not do business in the state of New York after 
the 1st of October, 1892, and had the right to provide in what 
manner such companies should do business. The injunction is 
continued with costs. 



Sectioxs of the Insurance Law of New York 185 



APPENDIX C 

The following are those sections of the insurance law of New 
York (being chapter 28 of the consolidated laws, constituting chap- 
ter 33 of the laws of 1909), as amended in 1909, which are appli- 
cable to Lloyds associations and organizations of inter-insurers: 

§ 54. Conduct of insurance business by persons not incorporated. 

— No person, partnership, or association of persons shall engage 
in the business of insurance in this state except as agent of a 
person or corporation authorized to do the business of insurance 
in the state, unless possessed of the capital required of an insur- 
ance corporation doing the same kind of business in the state 
and invested in the same manner; nor unless he or they shall 
have made and deposited with the superintendent of insurance 
securities of the same amount required of an insurance corpora- 
tion doing business in this state, nor unless the superintendent of 
insurance shall have granted to him or them a certificate to the 
effect that he or they have complied with' all the provisions of law 
which an insurance corporation doing business in this state is re- 
quired to observe, and that the business of insurance specified 
therein may be safely intrusted to the person, partnership or 
association of persons to whom the certificate is granted. 

Every person, partnership or association receiving any such 
certificate of authority shall be subject to the insurance laws of 
the state and to the jurisdiction and supervision of the superin- 
tendent of insurance in the same manner as if an insurance cor- 
poration authorized by the laws of the state to engage in the 
business of insurance specified in the certificate. 

No such person, partnership or association shall transact busi- 
ness under a corporate or fictitious name or under any name, 
style or title other than the true name of such person, or of the 
persons comprising such partnership or association. 

§ 57. Application of article limited. — The provisions of this 
article shall not apply to the corporations specified in articles 
seven and nine of this chapter, or to any town or county co- 
operative insurance corporation incorporated under any special 
act of the legislature, for purposes similar to those for which cor- 
porations may be formed under article nine, nor to any corpora- 
tion subject to the supervision of or required by or in pursuance 



186 Lloyds Report 

of law to report to the superintendent of the banking department, 
nor to any individual or partnership or association of underwriters 
known as Lloyds or as individual underwriters which, on the first 
day of October, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, was lawfully 
engaged in the business of insurance within this state, and not 
required by law to report to the superintendent of insurance or 
the insurance department or subject to their supervision or 
examination, nor to any such association, notwithstanding any 
change hereafter made therein by the death, retirement or with- 
drawal of any such underwriters or by the admission of others to 
such association, except, however, that every such individual; 
partnership or association of underwriters shall, on or before the 
first day of February of each year, make and file with the super- 
intendent of insurance a statement of its affairs during the year 
ending on the thirty-first clay of December immediately preceding, 
which statement shall be verified by the accredited attorney of the 
underwriters of the association and shall be in such form and 
contain such matter as the superintendent of insurance shall 
prescribe. 

Xo partnership or association of underwriters known as Lloyds 
or as individual underwriters which was lawfully engaged or was 
lawfully entitled to engage in the business of insurance in this 
state on April first, nineteen hundred and two, and which failed 
to file with the superintendent of insurance, on or before Septem- 
ber first, nineteen hundred and two, a copy of its original articles 
of association or co-partnership agreement, together with any 
amendments thereto, duly verified by one of the members thereof 
by affidavit to the effect that it is a true copy, and stating where 
the principal office of such partnership or association is located, 
the kind of business in which it was engaged and the name under 
which it did business, shall be permitted to engage in or transact 
the business of insurance. 

§ 63. Proceedings against and liquidation of delinquent insur- 
ance corporations.— This section shall apply to all domestic cor- 
porations, associations, societies and orders to which any article of 
this chapter is applicable, anything as to any such corporations, 
associations, societies or orders provided in this article to the 
contrary notwithstanding; and the words'" corporation " or "cor- 
porations " herein shall also include all such associations, societies 
and orders. 

1. Whenever any such corporation (a) is insolvent; or (b) 
has refused to submit its books, papers, accounts or affairs to the 
reasonable inspection of the superintendent, or his deputy or ex- 
aminer ; or (c) has neglected or refused to observe an order o£ 
the superintendent to make good within the time prescribed by 



Sections of the Insurance Law of JSTew York 187 

law any deficiency, whenever its capital, if it be a stock corpora- 
tion, or its reserve, if it be a mutual corporation, shall have be- 
come impaired ; or (d) has, by contract of reinsurance or other- 
wise, transferred or attempted to transfer substantially its entire 
property or business, or entered into any transaction the effect of 
which is to merge substantially its entire property or business 
in the property or business of any other corporation, association, 
society or order, without having first obtained the written ap- 
proval of the superintendent ; or (e) is found, after an exami- 
nation, to be in such condition that its further transaction of 
business will be hazardous to its policyholders, or to its creditors, 
or to the public; or (f) has wilfully violated its charter or any 
law of the state; or (g) whenever any officer thereof has refused 
to be examined under oath touching its affairs, — the super- 
intendent may, the attorney-general representing him, apply to 
the supreme court or any judge thereof in the judicial district 
in which the principal office of such corporation is located for an 
order directing such corporation to show cause why the superin- 
tendent should not take possession of its property and conduct its 
business, and for such other relief as the nature of the case and 
the interests of its policyholders, creditors, stockholders or the 
public may require. 

•2. On such application, or at any time thereafter, such court 
may, in its discretion, issue an injunction restraining such corpora- 
tion from the transaction of its business or disposition of it a 
property until the further order of the court. On the return of 
such order to show cause, and after a full hearing, the court shall 
either deny the application or direct the superintendent forthwith 
to take possession of the property and conduct the business of such 
corporation, and retain such possession and conduct such business 
until, on the application either of the superintendent, the attorney- 
general representing him, or of such corporation, it shall, after 
a like hearing, appear to the court that the ground for such order 
directing the superintendent to take possession has been removed 
and that the corporation can properly resume possession of its 
property and the conduct of its business. 

3. If, on a like application and order to show cause, and after 
a full hearing, the court shall order the liquidation of the business 
of such corporation, such liquidation shall be made by and under 
the direction of the superintendent, who may deal with the prop- 
erty and business of such corporation in his own name as super- 
intendent or in the name of the corporation, as the court may di- 
rect, and shall be vested by operation of law with title to all of the 
property, contracts and rights of action of such corporation as of 
the date of the order so directing him to liquidate. The tiling or 



1S8 Lloyds Report 

recording of such order in any record office of the state shall im- 
part the same notice that a deed, bill of sale or other evidence of 
title duly filed or recorded by such corporation would have im- 
parted. 

4. For the purposes of this section, the superintendent shall 
have power to appoint, under his hand and official seal, one or 
more special deputy superintendents of insurance, as his agent or 
agents, and to employ such counsel, clerks and assistants as may 
by him be deemed necessary, and give each of such persons such 
powers to assist him as he may consider wise. The compensation 
of such special deputy superintendents, counsel, clerks and assist- 
ants, and all expenses of taking possession of and conducting the 
business of liquidating any such corporation shall be fixed by the 
superintendent, subject to the approval of the court, and shall, 
on certificate of the superintendent, be paid out of the funds or 
assets of such corporation. 

5. For the purposes of this section, the superintendent shall 
have power, subject to the approval of the court, to make and pre- 
scribe such rules and regulations as to him shall seem proper. 

6. The superintendent shall transmit to the legislature, in his 
annual report, the names of the corporations so taken possession 
of, whether the same have resumed business or have been liqui- 
dated, and such other facts as shall acquaint the policyholders, 
creditors, stockholders and the public with his proceedings under 
this section ; and, to that end, the special deputy superintendent 
in charge of any such corporation shall file annually with the su- 
perintendent a report of the affairs of such corporation similar 
to that required by law to be filed by such corporation. 

7. All acts of the superintendent of insurance, in taking or con- 
tinuing in possession of any property, or in the regulation, con- 
duct or liquidation of the business, of any corporation to which 
this section is applicable, since the first day of January, nineteen 
hundred and nine, whether such taking possession, continuing in 
possession, regulation, conduct or liquidation was in pursuance of 
a contract, by mutual consent or otherwise, are hereby ratified, 
legalized and confirmed. 

From Section 121 

It shall not be lawful for any association of individual under- 
writers known as Lloyds to stamp, print or write, or otherwise 
cause or permit to be stamped, written or printed upon any fire 
insurance policy issued by it any words which may in any way 
tend to convey the impression that such policy is in form or sub- 
si ance the standard form of policy prescribed by this chapter loi 



Sections of the Insurance Law oe New York 189 

the use of corporations authorized by law to transact the business 
of lire insurance within this state. 

§ 142. Reserve fund maintained by Lloyds or individual under* 
writers. — Every individual or partnership or association of indi- 
viduals known as Lloyds or as individual underwriters, now au- 
thorized by law to transact the business of fire insurance within 
this state, shall on all policies hereafter issued, create and main- 
tain a reserve fund equal to its liabilities computed as follows : 
In estimating its liabilities there shall be charged, in addition to 
all outstanding claims, a sum equal to the total unearned pre- 
miums on the policies in force charged to the policyholder on each 
respective risk from the date of the issue of the policy, calculated 
on the gross sum without any deduction on account except that 
credit shall be allowed for premiums for reinsurances in corpora- 
tions authorized by law to transact the business of fire insurance 
within this state or with individuals, partnerships or associations 
of individuals transacting such business and approved by the su- 
perintendent of insurance and computed as prescribed by section 
twenty-two of article one of this chapter. If for any reason the 
reserve fund hereinabove provided for of any such individual, 
partnership or association of underwriters known as Lloyds or as 
individual underwriters, shall become impaired such impairment 
shall be made good within ninety days from the service of a re- 
quisition by the superintendent of insurance upon such individual, 
partnership or association of underwriters known as Lloyds or as 
individual underwriters. 

§ 143. Change of name of Lloyds or individual underwriters. — 
No such individual, partnership or association of underwriters 
known as Lloyds or as individual underwriters shall hereafter 
change its name without first filing with the superintendent of in- 
surance a written notice of intention so to do ; but no such change 
shall be made if the name or names proposed to be adopted, shall, 
in the judgment of the superintendent of insurance, be so similar 
to the name or names used by any other individual, partnership 
or association of underwriters known as Lloyds or as individual 
underwriters, or corporations authorized by law to transact insur- 
ance business within this state, as to he calculated to deceive ; and 
no such individual, partnership or association of underwriters 
known as Lloyds or as individual underwriters shall hereafter es- 
tablish branches under other or different names or titles without 
first obtaining the written approval of the superintendent of. in- 
surance ; and every change in the subscribing underwriters or their 
attorneys in fact shall be reported by a written verified statement 
of one of its officers to the superintendent of insurance within 
twenty davs after the same has been made. Any such individual. 



100 Lloyds Keport 

partnership or association of underwriters failing to comply with, 
any of the provisions of this section or of section one hundred and 
forty-two, or which shall make any false or fraudulent statements 
m its annual report or other report required by the insurance de- 
partment, may be restrained and enjoined from transacting insur- 
ance business within this state in an action or proceeding brought 
by the attorney-general at the request of the superintendent of in- 
surance. Any person, partnership, corporation or association act- 
ing as agent or attorney-in-fact for any such individual, partner- 
ship or association of underwriters which shall fail to comply with 
any of the provisions of this section or section one hundred and 
forty-two, or which shall act as the agent or attorney in fact for 
any individual, partnership or association of underwriters known 
as Lloyds or as individual underwriters which is not now author- 
ized by law to transact insurance business within this state, is 
guilty of a misdemeanor. Provided, however, that nothing herein 
contained shall prohibit any person, partnership, association 
or corporation authorized by law on May nineteenth, nine- 
teen hundred and five, from acting as agent or attorney in fact 
for any such individual, partnership or association of underwrit- 
ers known as Lloyds or as individual underwriters for the purpose 
of liquidating liabilities incurred on policies issued prior to said 
date. 

§ 162. Lloyds or individual underwriters. — The provisions of 
section one hundred and forty-two and one hundred and forty- 
three of this chapter are hereby made applicable to every individ- 
ual or partnership or association of individuals known as Lloyds 
or as individual underwriters now authorized by law to transact 
the business of marine insurance within this state as defined by 
section one hundred and fifty, and to every agent or attorney in 
fact for the same. 

The Following is Section 187 of the Tax Law, Making 
Lloyds Associations and Individual Underwriters 
Amenable to Taxation on Premium Income : 

§ 187. Franchise tax on insurance corporations. — An annual 
state tax for the privilege of exercising corporate franchises cr for 
carrying on business in their corporate or organized capacity 
within this state equal to one per centum on the gross amount of 
premiums received during the preceding calendar year for busi- 
ness done at any time in this state, which gross amount of pre- 
miums shall include all premiums received during such preceding 
calendar year on all policies, certificates, renewals, policies subse- 
quently canceled, insurance and reinsurance during such preced- 



Sectiox of the Tax Law of Xew York 191 

ing calendar year, and all premiums that are received during such 
preceding calendar year on all policies, certificates, renewals, poli- 
cies subsequently canceled, insurance and reinsurance executed, 
issued or delivered in all years prior to such preceding calendar 
year, whether such premiums were in the form of money, notes, 
credits, or any other substitute for money, shall be paid annually 
into the treasury of the state on or before the first day of June by 
the following corporations : 

1. Every domestic insurance corporation, incorporated, organ- 
ized or formed under, by or pursuant to a general or special law; 

2. Every insurance corporation, incorporated, organized or 
formed under, by or pursuant to the laws of any other state of the 
United States, and doing business in this state, except a corpora- 
tion doing a fire insurance business or a marine insurance busi- 
ness ; 

3. Every insurance corporation, incorporated, organized or 
formed under, by or pursuant to the laws of any state without the 
United States, or of any foreign country, except such a corporation 
doing a life, health or casualty insurance business, and doing busi- 
ness in this state ; but the tax on gross premiums of a corporation 
so incorporated, organized or formed and doing a fire or marine 
insurance business within the state shall be equal to five-tenths 
of one per centum. This section does not apply to a fraternal 
beneficiary society, order or association, a corporation for the in- 
surance of domestic animals, a town or county co-operative insur- 
ance corporation, nor to any corporation subject to the supervision 
of or required by or in pursuance of law to report to the superin- 
tendent of banks ; but this section does apply to an individual, or 
partnership, or association of underwriters known as Lloyds in 
so far as corporations doing the same kind of insurance business 
are subject to its provisions. The taxes imposed by this section 
shall be in addition to all other fees, licenses or taxes imposed by 
this or any other law, except that in assessing taxes under the re- 
ciprocal provisions of section thirty-four of the insurance law, 
credit shall be allowed for any taxes paid under this section. The 
term " insurance corporations " as used in this article, shall in- 
clude a corporation, association, joint-stock company or associa- 
tion, person, society, aggregation or partnership by whatever 
name known doing an insurance business in this state. 



192 Lloyds Report 



APPEXDIX D 



The opinions of the attorneys-general in answer to questions 
submitted by the insurance department are here given in full. It 
is not thought necessary to include the department's letters con- 
taining such questions. 

State or Xew York — Attorxey-Gexebal's Office 

Albany, June 1, 1893. 
Hon. James P. Pierce, Superintendent of Insurance. 

Dear Sir. — I have the honor of acknowledging the receipt of 
yours of the 20th ultimo submitting the question whether the in- 
surance Lloyds companies which organized between the dates of 
the passage of the insurance law of 1892 and October 1, 1892, 
when it took effect, are or are not within the provisions of that 
law and enclosing copy of a letter written by you to Ward Phillips, 
Esq., general insurance agent, dated September 20, 1892. 

In_reply I beg to say: Section 57, chapter 690, laws of 1892 
provides that " the provisions of this act shall not apply to any in- 
dividual or partnership or association of underwriters known a3 
Lloyds or_ as individual underwriters which, at the time of the 
passage of this chapter is lawfully engaged in the business of in- 
surance within this state." 

This Act was signed by the governor May IS. 1892, and was to 
take effect October 1. 1892 : and the question is: are " Lloyd Com- 
panies n organized between those dates within the provisions of 
the law ? 

When no other time is fixed, a statute takes effect from the date 
of its passage. — from the date of the last act necessary to complete 
the process oi legislation and to give the bill the force of law. 
When approved by the executive, the act of approval is the last 
act and the date of it is the date of the passage of the act but 
" where a particular time for the commencement of a statute is 
appointed, it only begins to have effect and to speak from that 
time unless a different intention is manifest.'*' 

Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 107. 

It is claimed the legislature did manifest a different intention 
by excepting from the operation of the act, the Lloyds, organized 
at the time of the passage of the act, and as to all organizations of 
this kind created after May IS. 1892. it was operative; as to such, 
the act went into effect at that date. 



Opinions of the Attorney-Generals 193 

The last section, however, declares the act shall take effect on the 
1st of October. The entire act was then to take effect. The 
words " at the time of the passage of this chapter " are no more 
expressive as to time than the words " after the passage of this 
act " or the words " heretofore " and " hereafter." The act to 
tax gifts, legacies, etc., was passed June 10, 1885, and provided 
that " after the passage of this act, all property which shall pass 
by will," etc., * * * shall be subject to a tax * * *. 

° In the Matter of Howe, 112 K Y. 100, the Court of Appeals 
held : "In the absence of any other provision this act would take 
effect from its elate, that being the time when according to the 
certificate of the secretary of state, the bill became a law * * * ; 
but the words " after the passage of this act," are no more 
significant than the word " hereafter," and the general provision 
of the Revised Statutes (id. s. 12) " of the enactment and promul- 
gation of statute^ and of the time from which they take effect," 
declares that, " every law unless a different time shall be pre- 
scribed therein, shall commence and take effect, throughout the 
state, on and not before the twentieth day after the day of its final 
passage, as certified by the secretary of state." * * * "It 
follows that as the act itself could not take effect within twenty 
days after its passage, or until the thirtieth day of June, the" 
clause relied upon by the appellant was necessarily inoperative 
until that time." So the terms " heretofore " and " hereafter " 
will be construed as spoken at the time the act takes effect. 

Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 107. 

I am of the opinion that the words " at the time of the passage 
of this chapter " used in section 57 must be construed to mean at 
the time when the act was to take effect, viz., October 1st. 
Very truly yours, 

(Signed) S. W. Rosendale, 

Attorney-General. 

State of New York — Attorney-General' s Office 

Albany, February 21, 1894. 

Hon. James F. Pierce, Superintendent of Insurance. 

Dear Sir. — The question presented by your letter of some 
days ago, as to whether, or not, certain Lloyds associations may 
be considered to have been lawfully engaged in the business of in- 
surance in this state at the date of the passage of chapter 690, 
laws of 1892, may be answered without a detailed examination 
of the various affidavits and exhibits accompanying your communi- 
cation. 



194 Lloyds Report 

Section 57 of the insurance law exempts from the provisions of 
article 1 of that law, individuals or partnerships or associations of 
underwriters known as Lloyds at the time of the passage of the 
act, lawfully engaged in the business of insurance within this 
state. 

The question is, therefore: What was intended by the term 
" engaged in business " within this state ? 

A casual examination of some of the papers discloses that cer- 
tain policies of insurance were issued by associations known as 
Lloyds some years prior to the enactment of this law, but that the. 
policies had lapsed. In other cases it appears that policies were 
outstanding, as liabilities existing against the underwriters at the 
time the law took effect. 

In my opinion, it was the intention of the legislature, by the 
use of the term " engaged in business " at the time the insurance 
law took effect, to declare that such associations as were then 
actually engaged in business, with policies outstanding and contin- 
gent liabilities thus assumed, should be determined to be engaged 
in business ; but that it was not the policy or intention of the legis- 
lature to include within the term " engaged in business " associa- 
tions who had theretofore issued policies, but who, at the time of 
the enactment of the law, were not actively engaged in business, 
or did not have policies or liabilities outstanding at such time; 
and the mere fact that, at some time prior to 1892, certain asso- 
ciations had issued policies which had lapsed, did not constitute 
such associations as engaged in business at the time of the passage 
of the insurance law. 

I return you herewith the various affidavits submitted with 
your letter. 

Very truly yours, 

(Signed) T. E. Hancock, 

Attorney-General. 

State of ISTew York — Attorney-Oeneral's Office 

Albany, March 29, 1895. 

My Dear Sir. — I have your extensive communication of some 
weeks ago in relation to the transaction of the business of insur- 
ance by associations known as " Lloyds." 

If I correctly apprehend the purport of the same, I have sub- 
stantially covered the inquiries contained therein in my communi- 
cation to you under date of February 21, 1894. 

The penalties, if any there may be, due from any such associa- 
tions to the fire department of the City of ^Tew York, under the 
provisions of title 7 of the consolidation act, do not constitute 



Opinions of the Attorney-Generals 195 

claims, the ownership of which is in the state. Such penalties 
inure, when collected, to the benefit of the said fire department. 
The state has no immediate interest therein, nor in the collection 
thereof, and consequently no action in regard thereto can be ex- 
pected on the part of this office. 

For further action in regard thereto, I respectfully refer you 
to the corporation counsel of that city. 
Yours very truly, 

(Signed) T. E. Hancock, 

A ttorney-General. 

Hon. James F. Pierce, 

Superintendent of Insurance. 

Attorney-General's Office, 

Albany, September 2, 1899. 
Hon. Louis F. Payist, Superintendent of Insurance, Albany, N. Y. 

Dear Sir. — I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter relating 
to the New York Marine Underwriters, an aggregation of Lloyds. 

It seems that this branch of the Lloyds was, previous to Oc- 
tober 1, 1892, transacting the business of ocean marine insurance; 
that since that time they are issuing insurance policies or certifi- 
cates insuring against loss by theft or burglary. You ask for my 
opinion as to whether or not this aggregation has a right to insure 
any class of risks not made on or prior to October 1, 1892. 

I will not take the liberty to quote the provisions of section 57 
of the insurance law, as you are entirely familiar therewith. It 
seems clear to me that the restrictions and exceptions contained 
in said section weie intended to apply to institutions of this nature 
upon the precise kind of insurance conducted by them on the 1st 
day of October, 1892, and that it was not the intention that from 
the fact that a Lloyds society or aggregation was at the time 
engaged in insurance business, it could extend its kind of business 
to other lines of insurance than that in which it was at the time 
engaged. In other words, I am satisfied that it was the legis- 
lative intent that all persons, corporations, companies or aggre- 
gations engaged in the business of insurance on the 1st day of 
October, 1892, such as conferred by this section, should continue 
the particular kind of insurance practiced by it or them at said 
time, and none other, without complying with the provisions of 
the insurance law. 

Yours truly, 

(Signed) J. C. Davies, 

A ttorney-General. 



196 Lloyds Report 

State of New York — Attorxey-Gtexeral's Office 

Albany, December 6, 1899. 

The Honorable Louis F. Payk. Superintendent of Insurance, 
Albany, N. Y. 

Dear Sie. — I have received your letter under date of Nov. 15th 
ult., and accompanying memoranda, asking for my opinion, first, 
as to whether you are entitled to demand and enforce payment 
by the United States Lloyds and like associations, of a tax of 
two per centum upon the amount of all premiums upon insurance 
against marine risks, pursuant to section 34 of the insurance law, 
since 1892 when said section was enacted; secondly, whether you 
are entitled to demand and enforce payment from such associa- 
tions upon premiums received prior to 1893, under the existing 
laws; and, thirdly, whether you may institute an examination of 
the books and records of such associations for the purpose of 
ascertaining the amounts of premiums collected. 

First. Xo claim whatever exists, or has ever existed in favor 
of the state against the associations or the members of the same. 
The language of the statute is. " The agent of every corporation, 
association or individual," etc., " shall annually pay to the super- 
intendent of insurance a tax of two per centum," etc. This 
language does not impose any tax upon the associations or their 
members, nor create any liability on their part for the payment 
of the same. The tax is imposed upon the agents, for the privi- 
lege of acting as such, and not upon the associations for the privi- 
lege of carrying on their business. As was said by the Court of 
Appeals in the case of Fire Department v. Stanton, 159 N. Y. 
225, 234: 

" It is to be observed that this statute does not impose the 
burden of a tax upon the individual insurers, or the unincor- 
porated association of individual insurers. It exacts from every 
person who acts as agent for such, the payment of a license fee 
as a condition of his right to do so." 

As to the liability of persons who have acted as agents for 
these associations since 1892 I think that there can be little 
question. The case of Fire Department v. Stanton (supra) seems 
to be decisive of the question. It is true that this statute was not 
under consideration in that case, but the two statutes are so 
similar in form and terms and the questions involved so nearly 
identical, that there seems to be no doubt of the controlling au- 
thority of the case upon this question. 

Second. The question as to the right of the superintendent to 
collect the tax for the period prior to 1892 presents much greater 
difficulties. 



Opinions of the Attorney-Generaes 197 

Under the provisions of chapter 30 of the laws of 1837 which 
continued in force to the time of the passage of the insurance law 
in 1892, the same liability existed on the part of the agents in 
Question, to pay the tax of two per centum, but instead of paying 
it to the superintendent, they were required to pay it into the 
treasury of the state. I find nothing in the act creating the office 
of superintendent of insurance, or in any subsequent legislation, 
which would warrant me in expressing the opinion that the super- 
intendent can recover these moneys or institute proceedings for 
their recovery. 

Entertaining these views, it would not be profitable to discuss 
the question suggested by you as to the effect of the statute of 
limitations, as that question can only affect the taxes accruing 
prior to 1892. 

Third. I am of the opinion that you have no authority of your 
own motion, to institute an examination of the books and records 
of these associations to ascertain the amount of premiums col- 
lected ; and that such examination and inspection can only be pro- 
cured by an order of the court, granted in pursuance of the pro- 
visions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 

Yours respectfully, 

John C. Davies, 

Attorney -General. 

Attorney-Generae's Office 

Albany, March 22, 1901. 

Hon. Francis Hendricks, Superintendent of Insurance, Albany, 
N. Y. 

Dear Sir. — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
your favor of March 14th, asking my opinion as to the status of 
the " Columbia Tire Lloyds/' so-called, in so far as your depart- 
ment is concerned. 

The facts as I understand them from your letter and the in- 
cisures are as follows: On September 20, 1892, certain indi- 
viduals entered into an agreement to insure against loss by fire 
under the name of the C6lumbia Tire Lloyds; the agreement pro- 
vided that it should continue in force for five years from Septem- 
ber 30, 1892, and as long thereafter as should be agreed upon bv 
the subscribers and those uniting with them on or before May 1, 
1897; policies were issued on September 30, 1892, and the fire 
insurance business was actively commenced and carried on down 
to the 31st day of December, 1896; on that day all of the risks 
with possibly one or two exceptions were reinsured ; during the 



198 Lloyds Report 

years 1897 and 1898 no policies were issued, though the associa- 
tion was still liable under some of the reinsured policies ; subse- 
quently to the reinsurance all but two of the underwriters severed 
their connection with the association ; these two remaining under- 
writers did, in 1899 and 1900, issue these policies which are now 
in force ; it is claimed that there has been no time since September 
'30, 1S92, down to the present time, when the association was not 
liable upon some outstanding policies. 

It is now desired to sell all the right, title and interest in and 
to ihe Columbia Fire Lloyds, and I understand that you desire 
my opinion as to its status, under the insurance law, so far as 
your department is concerned. 

The insurance law (chapter 690 of the laws of 1892) was signed 
by the governor May 18, 1892, and took effect on October 1, 
1892. Section 57 of that law provided, among other things, that 
the provisions of the first article thereof should not apply " to 
any individual, partnership or association of underwriters known 
as Lloyds or as individual underwriters, which at the time of the 
passage of this chapter, is lawfully engaged in the business of 
insurance within this state." In construing this language, the 
attorney-general, under date of June 1, 1893, in a communication 
to your department, stated that the words " at the time of the 
passage of this chapter " must be construed to mean when the act 
took effect, viz., October 1, 1892. 

By chapter 684 of the laws of 1894, this section was amended 
by striking out the words u at the time of the passage of this 
chapter " and inserting the words " on the first day of October, 
eighteen hundred and ninety-two," thus confirming the opinion 
of the attorney-general. 

Section 57 further provides that the provisions of article 1 of 
the insurance law shall not apply " to any such association, not- 
withstanding any change hereafter made by death, retirement or 
withdrawal of any such underwriters or by the admission of others 
by such association." The legislature has thus provided for the 
continuation of the Lloyds associations, notwithstanding changes 
in its membershin. 

The sole question to be considered then is whether the agree- 
ment of September 30, 1892, is still in effect. As I understand 
it, that agreement was a partnership agreement which was to con- 
tinue until September 30, 1897, provision being made for its 
extension beyond that date by agreement to be made on or before 
Mav 1, 1^97. Xo such agreement appears to have been made. 

Upon those assumptions T am of the opinion that the Columbia 
Fire Llovds lost the rights and nrivileges preserved to it under 
section 57 of the insurance law, by permitting its legal associate 



Opinions of the Attoeney-Geneeals 199 

existence to lapse on September 30, 1897. It undoubtedly had 
the right under the agreement to extend its existence by making, 
on or before May 1, 1897, the further agreement therein provided 
for, but not having done so, its associate existence terminated. 
Very truly yours, 

John C. Davies, 

Attorney-General 

State of New York — Attobxey-Gexeeae's Office 

Albany, January 28th, 1903. 

To the Honorable the Superintendent of Insurance, Albany, 
X Y. 

Sir.- 1 — Your communication of January 14th, containing the 
report of Special Deputy Attorney-General Edgcomb, relative to 
his investigation of certain Lloyds associations of independent 
underwriters, received. 

In respect to those Lloyds aggregations whose right to do busi- 
ness is found by Mr. Edgcomb to be doubtful, viz. : The Fidelity 
Insurance Association, New York & Chicago Lloyds, Associated 
Underwriters at South and North American Lloyds, Underwriters 
at Electric City Lloyds, New York Central Eire Lloyds, I have 
examined his report and the authorities bearing upon the question 
submitted, and am of the opinion that, under the authority of 
People vs. Abell, N. Y. Law Journal, May 2, 1896; People vs. 
Loew, 19 Misc. 248 ; 23 Misc. 574, and Matter of Jackson Marine 
Insurance Company, 4 Sandford's Chancery, 559, that those 
associations which suspended business at any time after October 
1st, 1892, or did not continue to actually and in good faith con- 
duct business, and which, for the mere purpose of continuing or 
attempting to continue and retain the rights which they had 
previously had under section 57 of the insurance law, issued 
policies to members or employees of the associations themselves 
and renewed the same ; by such suspension and failure to transact, 
in good faith, actual business with parties other than the under- 
writers themselves, lost whatever rights they had under section 57, 
as it existed prior to its amendment in 1902, and that having 
once lost those rights, they could not be again revived. There- 
fore such associations cannot be said to have been lawfully engaged 
in the business of insurance in this state on the 1st day of April, 
1902, and are therefore liable to a suit restraining them from 
conducting such business. 

Respecting the suggestion in your communication that an ex- 
amination of the papers filed by various Lloyds Associations re- 



200 Lloyds Eepoet 

veals the fact that twelve of them have at various times made one 
or more changes in the name under which they have done business, 
and submitting the question whether such change of name does 
not forfeit their right tc business, I am of the opinion that it 
is doubtful whether the sing t of a change of name would 

sustain an action to restrain them from transacting busine— . 

As was said by Judge Russell, in People vs. Loew. 23 Misc.. 
at page 576: " The exception of this class of persons fro::: the 
general public pol he state, as announced by \ 

of the laws of 1892, was designed to relieve from the hardship of 
the prohibition, those who had in good faith acquired pi 
rights and earned somewhat of a good will in insurance business 
by their efforts prior to the date named.*" 

The exception being lesigned to save property rights, acquired 
in g : i d faith, in my opinion, in the absence of any statutory 
declaration of the causes for which they may be forfeited, they 
can only be destroyed by suspension of business, by some subter- 
fuge or evasion, oi y s me act : aets 3 amounting to bad faith, 
and the mere change of name unaccompanied by any 
does not seem to me to be sufficient for that 

In order to prepare the necessary papers in each of these cases, 
this office should be furnished with a copy of the articles of 
association or copartnership agreement filed with you on or 
September 1st, 1902, and a 3opy >f the form of policy used by 
each of the associations against which it is intended t 

Upon receipt of those papers m each case. I shall be prepared 
to begin actions in those cases where it is deemed advisable to It - : . 
Respectfully yours. 

Signed) Join* Cuwweeit, 

Attc -Gene ral. 

■ 
State or Xew Yoek — Attoevey-Ge^eeae's Office 

Albany. February 25, 1903. 
The Honorable the v te dent of Insun 

Sir. — The receipt is hereby acknowledged of your favor of this 
date statins; that complaint has been made to your department 
that one Jerome Derrick of Naples, IV. Y.. in September last 
a number of fire insurance policies on hop drying houses 
in that vicinity, with the American Tire Underwriters of Chicago. 
111., a Lloyds association not authorized to do the business :: 
insurance within this state. 

I note your further statement that you have made examination 
of the insurance law with a view to finding whether the placing 



Opinions of the Attorney-Generals 201 

of this insurance is in violation of law and that you request, my 
advice as to whether there is any provision in the insurance law 
which would cover the case in question. 

It seems to me that the case comes squarely under the pro- 
hibition of section 54 of the insurance law which provides that 
" Xo person, partnership or association of persons shall engage 
in the business of insurance in this state except as agents of a 
person or corporation authorized to do the business of insurance 
in this state, unless possessed of the capital required of an insur- 
ance corporation doing the same kind of business in this state 
and invested in the same manner." 

I assume that Mr. Derrick was not " possessed of the capital 
required of an insurance company doing the same kind of business 
in this state." and your letter states that he was not acting as 
" agent of a person or corporation authorized to do the business 
of insurance in this state." 

Xot coming under either of the two exceptions in the section, 
he does come within the general description of a person " engag- 
ing in the business of insurance in this state." 

I find nothing in the Penal Code making the transaction in 
question a criminal offense. 

In my judgment the only remedy is by an action for the re- 
covery of a penalty under section 53 of the insurance law. 
Very respectfully yours, 

John Cunneen, 

Attorney-General. 

Attorney-General's Office 

Albany, March 28, 1904. 
To the Honorable the Superintendent of Insurance. 

Sir. — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your 
communication of March 25th, enclosing copy of a letter to you 
from L. E. Bomeisler, in which he asks to be advised in reference 
to the contemplated purchase by a client of his of the Lloyds 
Association known as the Lloyds of New York City; and in his 
communication he asks as follows : 

" Should my present client acquire such Lloyds, it is his 
purpose to deposit a fund of at least one hundred thousand 
dollars in responsible trust companies for the security of 
policyholders under policies written at said Lloyds and the 
information which I desire is, first: in case my client is 
the sole surviving underwriter at said Lloyds and under- 
writes said policies alone, can he do so ; and, second : if he 
cannot do so, what is the least number of underwriters who 
can ? " 



202 Lloyds Keeoet 

In the American and English Encyclopedia of Law, 2nd ed., 
vol. 19. p. 117. a Lloyd? Association is defined as follows: 

" A Lloyds Association is, in the United Stares, a com- 
pany or association of individuals organized to do an insur- 
ance business on certain stipulations and conditions, evi- 
denced by written agreement." 

It is manifest that a single individual cannot be a company or 
association. There is no rule that I know of which defines exactly 
the least number of persons who may constitute a company or 
association of individuals, but it is very clear that it could not be 
less than two. 

Hoping that this sufficiently answers-Mr. Bomeisler's questions, 
I am. 

Very respectfully. 

John Cexxuiex. 

Attorney-General. 

Ateoexey-Gexeeae's Oeeice 

Aebaxy. October 7. 1901. 

To the Honorable the Superintendent of Insurance. 

Sie. — I am in receipt of your communication of October 1th 
enclosing copy of letter from Mr. Clarence Schenck of Xew York 
City, addressed to Mr. Appleton of your department, together 
with a manifold copy of his reply thereto. Mr. Schenck asks 
whether it will be acceptable to your department for a Lloyds 
Association to be formed under a Lloyds charter, to be purchased 
by him and to be composed of unadmitted fire insurance com- 
panies with a capital of not less than $100,000. all of which are 
now doing business in this state as surplus line companies under 
licensed agents : and second, if such an organization should be 
legally recognized by the department, whether the taxes upon it 
would have to be paid to the Volunteer Firemen's Home, and 
whether said association would be subject to section 137 of the 
insurance law ; and I am requested by you to advise you in refer- 
ence to the inquiries contained in Mr. Sckenek's letter. 

I am of the opinion that a Lloyds Association may not be formed 
by fire insurance companies of the character mentioned in Mr. 
Schenck ? s communication. That being so. a reply to the second 
and third questions in Mr. Schenck's communication is unneces- 
sary. 

Yours respectfully, 

LoHX CUXXEEX. 

Attorney-General. 



Opinions of the Attorxey-Gexerals 203 

Attorxey-Gexerae's Office 

Albany, October 17, 1904. 

To the Honorable the Superintendent of Insurance, Albany, 
N. Y. 

Dear Sir. — I have examined the papers submitted recently by 
Mr. Appleton in relation to the application of the Individual 
Fire Underwriters of St. Louis, Mo., a Lloyds aggregation of 
that state, for permission to enter the state of New York to 
transact the business of insurance, and am of the opinion that 
the insurance law of this state does not contemplate granting 
by you of permission to a Lloyds aggregation of another state to 
-enter this state and transact the business of insurance. 
Yours respectfully, 

John Cuxxeex, 

Attorney-General. 

State of New York — Attorxey-IGexeral's Office 

Al^axy, December 6, 1905. 

To the Honorable Superintendent of Insurance, Albany, N. Y. 

Dear Sir. — Referring to your communication of September 
21st, inclosing copy of letter from Menken Brothers in re New 
York Fire Lloyd's, Isthmus Lloyd's of the City of New York, 
and asking my opinion as to the proper interpretation of a por- 
tion of section 138 of chapter 566 of the laws of 1905, which 
reads as follows : 

" Every individual or partnership or association of indi- 
viduals known as Lloyds or as individual underwriters, now 
authorized by law to transact the business of fire insurance 
within this state, shall on all policies hereafter issued, create 
and maintain a reserve fund equal to its liabilities computed 
as follows: In estimating its liabilities there shall be charged, 
in addition to all outstanding claims, a sum equal to the total 
unearned premiums on the policies in force charged to the 
policyholder on each respective risk from the date of the issue 
of the policy, calculated on the gross sum without any deduc- 
tion on any account except that credit shall be allowed for 
premiums for reinsurances in corporations authorized by law 
to transact the business of fire insurance within this stare or 
with individuals, partnerships or associations of individuals 
transacting such business and approved by the superintendent 
of insurance and computed as prescribed by section twenty- 



204 Lloyds Report 

two of article one of this act. If for any reason the reserve 
fund hereinabove provided for of any such individual, part- 
nership or association of underwriters known as Lloyds or 
as individual underwriters, shall become impaired such im- 
pairment shall be made good within ninety days from the 
service of a requisition by the superintendent of insurance 
upon such individual, partnership or association of under- 
writers known as Lloyds or as individual underwriters." 
I am of the opinion that the same only refers to and aifects 
policies issued on or after May 19, 1905, and that it does not 
relate to or affect policies issued prior to that date. 
Very truly yours, 

(Signed) Junius M. Mayer, 

Attorney-General. 

State of New York — Attorxey-Gexeral's Office 

Albaxy, April 27, 1908. 

To the Honorable the Superintendent of Insurance, Albany, 
N. Y. 
Dear Sir. — Your letter of the 8th instant received, containing 
enclosures of sample policy of the Individual underwriters and 
the New York Reciprocal underwriters, together with corre- 
spondence with Mr. John R. Waters, 90 West Street, Xew York 
City, in relation to those associations, and certain pamphlets 
descriptive of their method of transacting business, and inquiring 
whether these associations are such as are referred to in sections 
57, 138 and 139 of the insurance law and come under the super- 
vision of your department. 

From an examination of the documents submitted, I am of the 
opinion that these associations are such as are mentioned in the 
sections referred to and properly come under the supervision of 
your department. 

I enclose herewith the papers submitted. 
Yours truly, 

(Signed) W. S. Jacksox, 

Attorney-General. 

State of New York — Attorxey-Gexerae's Office 

Aebaxy, June 15, 1909. 

Hox. Weleiam II. Hotchkiss, Superintendent of Insurance, 
Albany, X. Y. 
Dear Sir. — I have your letters of April 19, Jure 1 and June 
12, 1909, in reference to your powers of supervision over asso- 



Opinions of the Attorney-Generals 205 

ciations of underwriters known as Lloyds or individual under- 
writers. I have given this matter very careful attention and 
beg to advise you of my conclusions as follows: 

Prior to the amendment of the insurance law by the addition 
of a new section known as section 63 (chapter 300 of the laws of 
1909), to which I shall subsequently refer, the only sections which 
seem to have had any application to such associations as those here 
in question, are sections 57, 142, 143 and 162 of the consolidated 
insurance law. 

Section 57 prescribes that all the provisions of article 1 of the 
insurance law shall not apply to any individual or partnership 
or association of underwriters known as Lloyds or as individual 
underwriters lawfully engaged in business on October 1, 1892, 
" except, however, that every such individual, partnership or 
association " is required to make and file an annual statement of 
its affairs, as prescribed by that section and by the superintendent 
of insurance. 

Section 112 provides that all such associations shall maintain 
a reserve fund equal to their liabilities, computed as therein 
prescribed, and that if for any reason such fund shall become 
impaired, it shall be made good within ninety days from the ser- 
vice of a requisition by the superintendent. 

Section 143 provides that no such association shall change its 
name without filing a written notice of intention with the super- 
intendent, and that no such change shall be made if the name or 
names proposed to be adopted shall, in the judgment of the 
superintendent, be so similar to the name or names of any other 
insurance association or corporation as to be calculated to deceive. 
This section also provides that no such association shall establish 
branches under different names without first obtaining the 
written approval of the superintendent, and that every change 
in the subscribing underwriters or their attorneys-in-fact shall 
be reported by a written verified statement as therein prescribed. 
It also provides that any such association failing to comply with 
the provisions of this and the preceding section, or making any 
false or fraudulent statements in its annual report or other report 
required by the insurance department, may be restrained and 
enjoined from transacting insurance business within this state, as 
therein prescribed. It is also made a misdemeanor for any per- 
son, corporation or association acting as agent or attorney-in-fact 
for any such individual or association, to fail to comply with any 
of the provisions of these two sections. 

Section 162 provides that marine Lloyds shall be subject to 
the provisions of sections 142 and 143. 

Under the law as thus outlined, it is apparent that the powers 
of the superintendent of insurance over such associations were 



206 Lloyds Repokt 

extremely meager and ill defined. The exception of the annual 
report from the provision that the first article should not apply 
to these associations, would probably carry with it the application 
of the penalty prescribed by section 53, and the failure on the 
part of the person who by virtue of his office is charged with the 
duty of filing this report, would be a misdemeanor. The superin- 
tendent Avould also seem to have, by necessary implication, the 
power to investigate the affairs of such associations to discover 
whether the reserve was adequate or had been made good after 
requisition by him, and also to discover whether any false or 
fraudulent statement had been made in any report. No machinery 
for enforcing this power, however, was provided by the statute 
and he probably would have been compelled to resort to the some- 
what doubtful means of an equity action restraining the officers 
from interfering with his investigations. 

It is my opinion that the powers of the superintendent may be 
regarded as somewhat strengthened by the amendment to the law 
already mentioned, adding section 63. This section provides in 
part as follows: 

" This section shall apply to all domestic corporations, as- 
sociations, societies and orders to which any article of this 
chapter is applicable, anything as to any such corporations, 
associations, societies or orders provided in this article to 
the contrary notwithstanding; and the words i corporation y 
or ' corporations ' herein shall also include all such asso- 
ciations, societies and orders." 

In my judgment, associations known as Lloyds or individual 
underwriters are included within the broad scope of this section 
as here defined. It is clear that several articles of the insurance 
law, in part at least, are applicable to such associations, and it 
would therefore seem to me to follow that such associations are 
within the scope of this language. 

This section specifies seven conditions under which the superin- 
tendent, represented by the attorney-general, may apply to the 
supreme court or any judge thereof, for an order directing an 
association or corporation' to show cause why the superintendent 
should not take possession of its property and conduct its business 
and for such other relief as the nature of the case and the interests 
of its policy holders, creditors, stockholders, or the public may 
require. Some of these conditions, in my opinion, come within 
the facts stated in your letter of June 12 upon which the ques- 
tions contained in your letter of April 19 were based, and the 
course of procedure here outlined would therefore seem to be an 
answer to some of these questions. 



Opixioxs or the Attokxey-Gexerals 207 

In taking up these questions, I will not review at length the 
facts upon which they are based and which are set forth in your 
last letter, but I will base my answers upon these facts and upon 
the information contained in your letters. I will now proceed to 
consider your inquiries in order : 

(1) "Has the superintendent of insurance authority to 
examine into the condition and affairs of an association of 
underwriters known as Lloyds ?" 

I have already referred to the implied authority to make such 
examination conferred by the other sections of the law, and to 
the possibility of an action to restrain interference with this 
authority. In addition to this, section 63 seems to furnish another 
method by which such examination may be enforced. It provides 
that if any such association " has refused to submit its books, 
papers, accounts or affairs to the reasonable inspection of the 
superintendent or his deputy or examiner " or " whenever any 
officer thereof has refused to be examined under oath touching 
its affairs " the superintendent may, through the attorney-general 
apply to the court for the relief specified-. It is my opinion that 
if the association or its officers refused to allow the superintendent 
to investigate its condition and affairs, a proper case would be 
made out for an order of court directing such association to show 
cause why the superintendent should not take possession of its' 
property and conduct its business. If before the return day of 
such order the association had not granted the necessary facility 
and permission to the superintendent to conduct this examination, 
lie would be entitled to be put into possession of its property 
and the conduct of its business. Once this were accomplished, 
of course, the examination could easily be made. 

(2) " Has the superintendent of insurance authority to 
examine into the condition and affairs of aggregations doing 
business as individual underwriters, and are such aggrega- 
tions compelled to pay the tax on their premium income as 
prescribed by section 187 of the tax law? " 

The first part of this question is answered by what has already 
been said under question 1. 

Section 187 of the tax law provides that the tax thereby im- 
posed applies to an individual or partnership or association of 
underwriters known as Lloyds in so far as corporations doing the 
same kind of insurance business are subject to its provisions. It 
is therefore my opinion that if these inter-insuring associations 
of individual underwriters are doing the same kind of insurance 
business as is taxable when carried on by corporations, they arc 
taxable under this section. 



208 Lloyds Report 

(3) " Has the superintendent of insurance authority to 
verify the annual statement as of December 31 of each year 
required to be made to this department by section 57 of the 
insurance law ? " 

This question has already been answered in the affirmative by 
what has been said in answer to your first inquiry. 

(4) " Does the non-user of a so-called charter or right to 
transact business work a forfeiture?" 

I cannot find any authority in the statutes holding that mere 
non-using will work such a forfeiture. There is a provision in 
the code by which, if a corporation fails to exercise its powers or 
has suspended its ordinary and lawful business for at least one 
year, an action may be brought by the attorney-general to procure 
the dissolution of the corporation or to vacate its charter, but 
this provision applies only to corporations. 

(5) " Can the so-called charter or right to do business of 
a Lloyds association be sold by one set of underwriters to 
another for a cash or other consideration ? " 

It appears from your letter that the method of this sale is for 
the individual underwriters to sell their interests to other indi- 
viduals and resign so as to allow them to take their places. 
Under section 57, providing that article 1 of the insurance law 
shall not apply to Lloyds, the right to effect a change in the 
membership of the organization is clearly recognized by the 
proviso that the article shall not apply " notwithstanding any 
change hereafter made therein by the death, retirement or with- 
drawal of any such underwriters or by the admission of others to 
such association * * *," 

It is my opinion that there is no prohibition upon the sale by 
the individual underwriters of their interest in the association to 
ether individuals or upon the substitution by resignation and new 
election of such others in the place of the original members. It 
would therefore follow that transfers of the so-called charter or 
right to do business of these associations may be made from one 
set of individuals to another through the medium of such change 
in membership. 

(6) "Does the failure of an association of underwriters 
known as Lloyds or as individual underwriters to file the 
annual report with this department as required by section 57 
of the insurance law, forfeit the right to transact business ? " 

There does not seem to be any provision of the statutes by 
which the failure to file an annual report forfeits the right to 



Opinions of the Attorney-Generals 209. 

transact business. As I have already pointed out, it is probable 
that the exception of the requirement of the annual report from 
the provision that article 1 of the insurance law shall not apply 
to these associations, operates also to except the penalty contained 
in section 53 from this provision, and such failure would there- 
fore probably constitute 9 misdemeanor on the part of the officer 
charged with the duty of making such report. Section 63, more- 
over, gives the superintendent the power to apply to the court for 
an order to show cause in case such an association has wilfully 
violated any law of this state and he would, therefore, in my 
judgment, be entitled to the same relief in case of such a refusal 
as already outlined, in case of refusal to allow him to make an 
examination. 

(7) " Has the superintendent of insurance, in his discre- 
tion, power to refuse to permit a Lloyds association to change 
its name ? " 

Under the provisions of the statute contained in section 143 
referred to above, no change in name shall be made if the name 
proposed to be adopted shall, in the judgment of the superin- 
tendent, be so similar to the name of other insurance associations 
or corporations as to be calculated to deceive. Apart from this 
provision, however, there would seem to be no power conferred 
upon the superintendent to refuse to permit such associations to 
change their names. The statute, by providing that no such 
association shall change its name without first filing with the 
superintendent a written notice of intention so to do, and that it 
shall not be made under the condition already referred to, seems 
to imply that in the absence of such objection a change of name 
may be effected. 

(8) "Is the personal liability of the underwriters assumed 
under their contracts with the policy holders, an asset which 
should be recognized in a financial statement of condition 
and affairs, and if so, should it be treated as a liability in 
whole or in part ? " 

This seems to be a question of fact, depending upon the cus- 
toms of actuaries or possibly upon the circumstances of the par- 
ticular case. I do not feel that I can safely lay down any general 
rule for your guidance. Certainly, if the underwriters are in 
fact irresponsible, their individual liability could scarcely be 
recognized as an asset in a financial statement. It would also 
seem that if such liability were in any case regarded as an asset, 
it should also be treated as a liability. 



210 Lloyds Keport 

(9) " Is a Lloyds association compelled to keep records 
showing the manner in which its business is conducted, and 
from which a verification of its annual statement or a finan- 
cial statement as of any date can be made by examiners of 
the department ? " 

It is my opinion that such associations are required to keep 
such records. The law imposing a penalty upon them for making 
any false report or statement by necessary implication would 
seem to impose the duty of keeping records from which the truth 
or falsity of the reports may be ascertained. 

(10) "Has the superintendent of insurance authority to 
refuse to print the annual statement of a Lloyds association 
or individual underwriters in the department report to the 
legislature, if such association or aggregation is not actively 
engaged in business ? " 

Section 46 of the insurance law prescribes the contents of the 
annual report to be made by the superintendent. Among other 
things, this report must contain the statements and reports made 
to him pursuant to the provisions of section 44 of this chapter. 
By section 44, reports are required to be made by every corpora- 
tion engaged wholly or in part in the business of insurance in this 
state. The reports of Lloyds associations are made under the 
provisions of section 57 rather than under the provisions of sec- 
tion 44. It is therefore my opinion that there is no requirement 
of law compelling the superintendent to insert in his annual re- 
port the statements or reports made to him by any of these Lloyds 
associations. 

(11) "Are liabilities incurred by underwriters of the 
Lloyds associations liabilities to be carried in every financial 
statement of the association made at any time while said 
liabilities are still outstanding ? " 

It would seem to be a necessary result of the ruling which I 
have already made to the effect that membership in these associa- 
tions may be changed and that the right to do business enjoyed 
by the former underwriters passes to the new members, that the 
liabilities accrued by the association should likewise pass to its 
new members. I am of the opinion that all liabilities incurred 
by any Lloyds association must be carried in every financial 
statement until they are satisfied. 

(12) " Should the unearned premium reserve of a Lloyds 
association or individual underwriters be calculated upon the 
same basis as that required of a fire insurance company by 
section 118 of the insurance law? " 



Opinions of the Attorney-Generals 211 

I find nothing in section 118 or in any other section which 
would authorize the application of that section as such to the 
calculation of the unearned premium reserve of a Lloyds associa- 
tion. It may be, however, that the principle there set forth is 
the recognized actuarial principle upon which such reserve should 
be calculated. If so, it would seem proper that it should be 
followed by Lloyds associations. If not, whatever actuarial 
method is recognized, should be applied. This is really an 
actuarial question rather than a question of law. 

(13) " Has the superintendent of insurance authority to 
compel a Lloyds association to make a verified statement of 
its condition or affairs at any time he may so desire ? " 

Section 143 provides that any individual, partnership or asso- 
ciation of underwriters making any false or fraudulent statement 
in its annual report " or other report required by the insurance 
department/' may be restrained and enjoined from transacting 
business. By implication, this would seem to give the insurance 
department the right to demand other than annual reports. The 
question would likewise seem to be answered by section 63, giving 
the superintendent power to act against such associations when- 
ever any officer thereof has refused to be examined under oath 
touching its affairs. 

In the communication from your counsel dated June 1, 1909, 
you ask two additional questions: 

(14) " Can a Lloyds aggregation which was doing a busi- 
ness of fire insurance prior to October 1, 1892, and that 
alone, after that date do in addition to their fire insurance 
that of marine insurance and burglary insurance ? " 

This question, in my judgment, should be answered in the nega- 
tive upon the grounds expressed in the opinion of Attorney- 
General Davies under date of September 2, 1899. 

(15) " Can a Lloyds aggregation write policies through 
deputy agents; that is, after a Lloyds aggregation designates 
a person, firm or corporation as its attorney to sign the 
policies for the insurers, can the attorney so designated au- 
thorize deputy attorneys to act for him and to sign the 
policies in the attorney's name for the insurers ? " 

This question, it seems to me, depends upon the law of agency 
rather than upon the insurance lf.w. If the original power of 
attorney given to the general attorney-in-fact is broad enough to 
permit him to delegate his power to deputies, then I see no legal 
objection to such procedure. The association would clearly be 



212 Lloyds Report 

bound by the policies under the law of agency, and that, it seems 
to me is the only question which can be considered. Having the 
right to act, it has also the right to act through such agents as 
it may desire provided no other law of the state is violated. 

In conclusion, in order that the fact that I have answered in 
some way all of your questions may not be misconstrued, I wish 
to say that in my opinion the law, even with section 63, is in a 
very unsatisfactory form in so far as the procedure to be followed 
by the superintendent in supervising these Lloyds associations is 
concerned. The remedy furnished by section 63, is in many 
cases, drastic and cumbersome and out of all proportion to the 
relief sought, and the foregoing opinion represents merely my 
best judgment as to the most practicable means of supervising 
these associations under the existing statutes. 
Very respectfully yours, 

Edward R. O'Malley, 

Attorney-General. 

State of Xew York — Attorxey-Gexeral's Office 

Albany, July 21, 1909. 

Hon. William H. Hotchkiss, Superintendent of Insurance, 
Albany, N. Y. 

Dear Sir. — Replying to your letter of the 14th inst., in which 
you enclose a copy of an opinion written on January 28, 1903, 
by Attorney-General Cunneen to the then superintendent of in- 
surance, I beg to advise that I have carefully examined the same 
and I do not feel that I can alter the views expressed in my opin- 
ion to you under date of June 15, 1909. 

Attorney-General Cunneen in this opinion holds, on the au- 
thority of certain decisions to which he refers, that a Lloyds 
association which at any time since October 1, 1892, has sus- 
pended business or which did not continue actually and in good 
faith to conduct business, lost whatever rights it had under sec- 
tion 57 as it existed prior to its amendment in 1902, and that 
once having lost these rights, they cannot be revived. 

The cases upon which his opinion was based are: People v. 
Abell, K Y. L. J., May 2, 1896; People v. Loew, 19 Misc. 248; 
23 Misc. 574; Matter of Jackson Marine Insurance Co., 4 Sandf. 
Ch. 559. 

The first two of these cases hold that Lloyds associations which 
were not on October 1, 1892, actually engaged in the insurance 
business, in good faith, come within the prohibition of article I 
and not within the exception of section 57. In other words, that 
such associations formed merely for the purpose of securing and 



Opinions of the Attorney-Generals 213 

continuing the right or franchise to transact business until such 
time as it could be sold to bona fide insurers, were not within 
the meaning of the legislature when it excepted from the prohibi- 
tion against the transaction of insurance by individuals those 
Lloyds associations which at a certain date were lawfully engaged 
in the business of insurance within the state. The cases rightly 
hold that such corporations were not engaged in the business of 
insurance at that time. The last case cited involves the for- 
feiture by a corporation of its privileges and franchises through 
nonuser for a year, and has no application to nonuser by indi- 
viduals or associations such as these. 

It seems to me, however, that where a Lloyds association was 
actually engaged in the business of insurance on October 1, 1892, 
so that it was expressly excepted from the prohibition of the 
statute, it does not forfeit its rights by subsequent nonuser. I 
know of no statute or common law principle which would work 
such a forfeiture, apart from article I of the insurance law, and 
that article has, as has been seen, no application. This view is 
strengthened by the language of the amendment to section 57 
which in part is as follows : 

" ~No partnership or association of underwriters known as 
Lloyds or as individual underwriters which was lawfully en- 
gaged or ivas lawfully entitled to engage in the business of 
insurance in this state on April 1, 1902, * * *." 

It appears from this language that the legislature contemplated 
that certain Lloyds associations excepted from the operation of 
article I might not be actually engaged in business on April 1, 
1902, and yet might be entitled to so engage. 
Very truly yours, 
(Signed) Edward R. O'Malley, 

Attorney-General. 



INDEX. 



A. PAGE 

Affidavit of William H. Broderick 158 

Affidavit of Joseph Hegeman 164 

Affidavit of Hubert L. Smith. ... 168 

Affidavit of David Vandergaw 160 

Allied Underwriters at New York and 

Chicago Lloyds 114 

American Exchange Underwriters 118 

American Lloyds, Underwriters at 97 

Assurance Lloyds of America 28 

Attorney-Generals. Opinions of the... 192 
B. 

Broderick, William H 158 

F. 

Fidelity Insurance Association 81 

G. 

Garfield Assurance Fire Lloyds 33 

Great Western Lloyds, Underwriters at 101 
H. 

Hegeman, Joseph 164 

History of Lloyds in New York 9 

History of Lloyds, London 6 

I. 

Indemnity Exchange, The 138 

Individual Histories and Present Finan- 
cial Conditions, etc 27 

Individual Underwriters 133 

Insurance Law of New York, Sections 

of 185 

Inter-Insurers Doing Business Under 

Lloyds Charters 114 

Inter-Insurers, Proper 133 

International Fire Office of New York 

City 38 

Isthmus Lloyds of the City of New 

York 42 

L. 
Laws of Various States, Summaries of 

the 145 

Lloyds in New York 9 

Lloyds, London 6 

Lloyds, New York • 5 

Lloyds (proper) 27 

Lumber Underwriters 51 

M. 

Manufacturer's Lloyds 54 

Mercantile Lloyds of New York City . . . 57 
Merchant's Fire Lloyds 61 



N. PAGE 

Names of Lloyds Associations 141 

National Underwriters of America, 

The 63 

New York and Boston Lloyds, Under- 
writers at 107 

New York Central Lloyds 68 

New York Commercial Underwriters . . 70 

New York Fire Lloyds 77 

New York Insurance Association 74 

New York and New England Under- 
writers at Lloyds of New York City . . 81 
New York Reciprocal Underwriters ... 135 
North American Inter-Insurers of the 
City of New York 126 

O. 

Opinion of Judge Bussell 174 

Opinion of Judge Truax 182 

Opinions of the Attorney-Generals 192 

R. 

Report on Lloyds and Inter-Insurers. . . 5 

S. 
Section of the Tax Law of New York. . 191 
Sections of the Insurance Law of New 

York 185 

Smith, Hubert L 168 

Subscribers at United States Lloyds. . . . 86 
Summaries of the Laws of Various 

States 145 

Superintendent's Letter to Governor 

Hughes 3 

T. 
Tax Law of New York, Section of the. 191 

U. 

Under writers at American Lloyds 97 

Underwriters at Great Western Lloyds. 101 
Underwriters at New York and Boston 

Lloyds 107 

Union Underwriters Ill 

Union Underwriters of New York 91 

United States Lloyds, Subscribers at . . . 80 

V. 

Vandergaw, David 100 






LB D 'II 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 292 925 7 



JSHH 
IHHfl 



m 




